First things first, I am with Dan Hawkins on everything he said yesterday at the annual Colorado Coaches Lunch in Colorado Springs yesterday. When looking over all of these topics that were discussed, keep these two questions in the back of your head, "Does it really make sense for CU financially, for national exposure, for recruiting and their ability to be successful (wins/losses)" and since their are always two sides to every debate, "Who really wins in the discussed scenario: the Colorado Buffaloes or the Air Force Falcons/Colorado St. Rams?" The main thing is college sports is not a charity, it is a business and Dan Hawkins is in the business of getting wins. That's not superiority complex, that's not CU being scared of in-state teams, that is the landscape of college football right now, get wins, give yourself every advantage you can possibly give yourself to be successful.
Steve Fairchild of Colorado St. provided plenty of sound bites that should provide Dan Hawkins a little more motivation to prepare his team for week one.
"Dan's got the microphone next, but I'm going to say it again: The game should be played in Denver for the next 100 years," Fairchild said.
"CU moving the game to Boulder (this year) is just silly. And it would be silly for us to play the game in Fort Collins," Fairchild said. "When it's in Denver, it's more than a game, it's an event. Walking out on the field and seeing 35,000 CU fans and 35,000 CSU fans is pretty amazing. "It makes a lot more sense financially for both schools to play it in Denver. I can't believe this was even an issue, but hopefully it will be played in Denver for the next 100 years."
Then I think Steve Fairchild compares the Colorado St. vs. Colorado game to Oklahoma vs. Texas, arguably a top 10 rivalry in all of sports. I really can't tell what he is talking about here but he has the microphone and his forum, so why not, right?:
"Moving the game back to Boulder makes no sense. I don't care if it's Oklahoma-Texas, there's not a better rivalry in college football. It's more than just a game. It's an event."
No coach, it makes A LOT more sense for Colorado St. financially as noted in this article back in early June by Kyle Ringo:
He said the difference between playing in Denver and playing in Fort Collins at Hughes Stadium (capacity 34,400) is approximately $600,000 to $800,000 depending on the year. CU also makes significantly more with the game in Denver.
Yes, the University of Colorado receives a boost monetarily but not as much as Colorado St. does. If you agree to give the Buffs a greater split of the money to represent the same percentage increase you receive from doing the game, then we are answering that question above: "Who really wins in the discussed scenario: the Colorado Buffaloes or the Air Force Falcons/Colorado St. Rams?"
Fairchild played for the Rams from 1978-80, but he said he never got to experience the rivalry from a player's standpoint.
"They wouldn't play us back then, I don't believe," he said. "They wouldn't schedule us."
Back to the Camera article:
Hawkins' preference is to make it a road game for the Rams every other year. He did play along with the routine a little bit, however, and quipped that perhaps the Buffs would be willing to scrimmage Fairchild's team in Greeley before the season. "Anytime you can play at home it's great. It doesn't matter if it's basketball or football, playing on the road is tough," Hawkins said. "Although for us it's a quasi-neutral environment at Denver, it's not your home spot. So I think there's always a little bit of a comfort level playing at home, no question. From that standpoint, it should be fun."
I understand playing the game in Denver, I like to go to the game in Denver but again, Hawkins needs to win, the Colorado fans want to win, if this gets us a better shot at winning, that is all that matters because that is all that matters in Dan Hawkins world right now.
Trivial Matters Stand in Way of CU-AFA Game | The Colorado Spring Gazette
Here we go with the handouts again. The Colorado Springs Gazette really, I mean really wants the Air Force vs. Colorado game to happen. This is one of three articles that have been their paper the last couple of months:
Fans want the game. The athletic directors want the game. Air Force coach Troy Calhoun wants the game. Colorado coach Dan Hawkins doesn't want the game, but we'll just ignore him.
"Are we," Hawkins asked, "obligated to play the two in-state teams and not have flexibility in our nonconference schedule?"
"Everyone wants us to play Air Force now. Guys, how many blows to the head can I take?" said Hawkins, who was seated next to Falcons head coach Troy Calhoun at the luncheon.
You better talk to your A.D. coach Hawk because he wants the game. Hawkins made it clear yesterday that he is none to excited about the potential of playing two in-state teams a year and I couldn't agree more. Count me in as one of those fans who doesn't want to play two in-state teams. There are more reasons not to like this situation than preparing for the triple option or losing to two in-state teams which the author confidently brings up as a possibility. Part of playing outside of Colorado is exposure on a national level, something that games against Colorado State and Air Force don't do as much as playing West Virginia, Florida State, California, Georgia...all geared toward recruits seeing the Buffs play the big boys.
To the writer of the article and anybody who thinks Hawkins and Co. are shying away from competition, look into the future, look into that past three years and tell me if their is a Big 12 team who played a harder non-conference slate. This thought process isn't driven by playing weaker schedules.
The Buffs only have four games out of conference, fixing two of them allows little wiggle room for the Buffs to be creative with scheduling in the future plus their will always be the debate as to where the Buffs will play these games (Denver, Colorado Springs, Boulder, Fort Collins). Drop Colorado State and then we can play Air Force. I am with Coach Hawkins on this one. I am an Air Force fan but in this situation, what do the Buffs gain by playing Colorado State and Air Force in the same season? Nothing compared to what Air Force and Colorado State gain. Remember my questions above.
Second point, can we get Mike Bohn and Dan Hawkins to present a united front? I think it is embarrassing that the athletic director is not in agreement with the head coach on where he wants his football team to play his games. It makes Dan Hawkins look like a bad guy when the athletic director takes the "politically correct" approach. Again, I am glad coach Hawk didn't cave to the pressure and logically spoke about these issues as what is good for his team.
Despite a 13-24 record through his first three seasons in Boulder, Hawkins didn't shy away when a reporter asked him Thursday if the Buffs were in position to make a run at the Big 12 title .
"Do we have the potential to do that? Yes, we do," Hawkins said after a long pause. "But you've got to get hot, you've got to get some confidence going, you've got to avoid injuries. And then you never know how those things will go. But I think we're definitely getting closer to knocking on the door."
more Colorado Football links after the jump...
Is there any chance Smith could change his mind and return to CU? "I'm not going there," Hawkins said. So, you don't expect to have Smith on the roster? "I'm not going there," Hawkins said.
Big 12 RB Profiles - AthlonSports.com
We are here to provide Darrell Scott and Rodney Stewart more and more bulletin board material for this season. AthlonSports put out their Big 12 fantasy football ratings for runningbacks which has Rodney Stewart at #10 and Darrell Scott at #15. Ahead of both players included Roy Helu Jr (Nebraska Cornhuskers), Baron Batch (Texas Tech Red Raiders), Jake Sharp (Kansas Jayhawks), Jay Finley (Baylor Bears), true freaking freshman Christine Michael (Texas A&M Aggies). Ahead of Darrell Scott at 11 - 14: Cody Johnson (Texas Longhorns), Alexander Robinson (Iowa St. Cyclones), Keith (who?) Toston (Oklahoma St. Cowboys) and Mossis Madu (Oklahoma Sooners).
Here is what they said about Stewart and Scott:
10. Rodney Stewart, Colorado Buffaloes (SO) — Bye Week — 4 — No. 76 overall RB A freshman back was expected to steal the show in Boulder last year, but his last name was supposed to be Scott, not Stewart. As a five-foot-seven freshman, not much was expected of Stewart, but he ended up leading the team in rushing. He produced three 100-yard efforts, notching 107 against Florida State, 141 against Kansas State and 166 against West Virginia. The Buffaloes were hindered by offensive line struggles last year and with more stability up front, Stewart and Scott should have a better season. Stewart gets the nod as the starter, but don't be surprised if Scott eventually assumes the No. 1 role. If you draft one, be sure to grab the other as a handcuff.
15. Darrell Scott, Colorado Buffaloes (SO) — Bye Week — 4 — No. 87 overall RB Scott entered last year with high expectations, but was a disappointment. The California native was the No. 3 player in the 2008 Athlon Consensus 100, but battled through injuries and was unable to unseat Rodney Stewart as the team's No. 1 back. However, 2009 is a new season and hopes are high Scott will blossom in his second season on campus. There's plenty of potential with this sophomore, but Stewart is still in the mix. Expect Scott to be better in his second year and he's a solid sleeper pick for those looking for an intriguing RB4 or RB5 pick.
CU gashes Nebraska for 380 rushing yards in No. 12 memory - Big 12 - ESPN
Ah yes, the 62 - 36 game finally makes it on Tim Griffin's list of top moments in the Big 12 history.
CU gashes Nebraska for 380 rushing yards in No. 12 memory
Dan Hawkins, the often jovial and boisterous head football coach at the University of Colorado, spoke to some 100 kids and staff Thursday at the Boys and Girls Ranch in El Pueblo.