Announcing a new grass-roots organization “Stop the Stadium”

A new Group called “STOP THE STADIUM” will have its first meeting at 7 pm on Wednesday, February 18 at the Old Town Library, Community Room #1.

The purpose of this group is to prevent the construction of a new On Campus Stadium at Colorado State University in Fort Collins. The focus will be Direct Action and Political Action to stop the stadium.

The direct action will include publicity, networking, and mobilization of the overwhelming majority of Fort Collins area residents who oppose the On Campus Stadium.

The political action will be at the local and state levels, including work with the state legislature and Fort Collins City Council.

This is a grassroots effort, intended to bring diverse people together for a common purpose. Many people who oppose the stadium have worked together and know each other. Many others have not connected with each other. This is a special opportunity to bring people together and start to build an effective communication network.

We look forward to seeing you there.

For more information, please contact Sandy at

UMass should shrink or scrap football

The following is an opinion piece discussing the cost of football at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

….The cost of moving to the higher level was steep. UMass had to assure many more football scholarships, meet minimum attendance requirements, and make facility improvements. But instead of leaping into glory, UMass hurled itself into a money pit. A program that cost the school $3.1 million in 2011 in direct support and student fees is projected to cost $8.6 million next year — even after projected revenues are taken into account — according a recently released faculty report………

Cont info for BOG and Governor Hickenlooper

Tony has made his decision about the stadium and will be requesting the Board of Governors approve the plan at their meeting this Friday in Denver. 

Please contact the CSU Board of Governors  and Colorado Governor Hickenlooper. Let them know your dissatisfaction to this decision. 

John W Hickenlooper, Governor

136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203-1792
(303) 866-2471
(303) 866-2003 

If above link doesn’t work, go to.

CSU Board of Governors

E mail should go to

There is an underscore after the s and before the b.  It does not hurt to communicate
as many times as you feel necessary.


Alabama-Birmingham officially shuts down football program

From the press release announcing the decision:

“The fiscal realities we face — both from an operating and a capital investment standpoint — are starker than ever and demand that we take decisive action for the greater good of the Athletic Department and UAB,” Watts said. “As we look at the evolving landscape of NCAA football, we see expenses only continuing to increase. When considering a model that best protects the financial future and prominence of the Athletic Department, football is simply not sustainable.”

Link to Alabama Strategic Review:
(Would be wonderful if CSU thought along the same lines.)

UAB – UAB News – University of Alabama at Birmingham announces results of Athletic Department strategic review

Link to Sports Illustrated story:

University of Alabama-Birmingham officially drops football program – College Football –


Public comment to BOG set for Dec 5

CSU’s Board of Governors to meet on stadium Dec. 5

The schedule is set for President Tony Frank’s recommendation to the CSU System Board.

The CSU System Board of Governors announced Tuesday its schedule regarding the controversial on-campus stadium at Colorado State University.

The stadium portion of the board’s December two-day meeting will start at noon, Dec. 5, at the CSU Denver Center, 475 17th St., in Denver, with CSU President Tony Frank’s stadium report. The public comment period will start at1:15 p.m. and continue for two hours. Board discussion and action will take place at 3:15 p.m., with the meeting to end at 4:30 p.m.

For those unable to travel to Denver, the meeting also will be streamed live by CSU.

Frank is considering four options, including two that include an on-campus stadium and two that involve maintaining or renovating the 46year-old Hughes Stadium.

However, comments Frank made to CSU’s Board of Governors in October and responses by board members all but ruled out pursuing two options to renovate Hughes Stadium. Recommendations made public last week by two advisory committees and the university‘s athletics and facilities departments also favored an on-campus stadium.

Frank told the Coloradoan he will make an announcement on the stadium as early as Saturday or by the beginning of next week.

Rebuttal to CSU “Blue Book” Stadium options


Right click and open the above link to read a formatted version of the text below.


Dear Editor:

Please replace CSU’s Summary of Options with this document.
CSU says its information is “internal and external,” but it’s
unattributed, “cherry picked,” and biased. Information below is
verifiable via internet. It uses CSU median numbers for costs
and for donations, unless blatantly erroneous. It considers
important circumstances impacting the General Fund. One, is a
football program that at best breaks even. Two, is a football
program that consistently produces top 25 teams and
corresponding profits, calculated as $240,000,000 over 30

Minimum Hughes: $31,500,000
Initial Cost is $39,000,000 (CSU median figure). If donations are
$7,500,000 (CSU median figure), Net Cost is $31,500,000
from the GF (General Fund). With “top ranks and
corresponding profits” (possible even next year), the
General Fund gains all revenues above the cost of the

Hughes 2050: Cost equals $3,800,000/year/30 years.

Initial Cost is $97,000,000, including: Hughes Minimum at
$39,000,000 and adding 4,000 seats at $17,000,000 (source,
CSU). Then, to build the equivalent of Boise State’s 2008
Stueckle Sky Center, a stadium upgrade virtually identical to
“Hughes 2050,” costs $41,000,000 today (source, Insee)…
$37,500,000 in 2008. Stueckle has all the “premium” aspects
CSU plans, 80,000 more square feet than CSU plans, two
elevator towers, and the world’s largest movable window.  If
donations are $30,000,000, Net Cost is a $67,000,000
revenue bond. With “program at best breaks even,” the GF
pays $115,000,000; with “top ranks and profits,” the GF
gains $125,000,000.

Campus, Phase One: Cost equals $11,100,000/year/30 

Initial Cost is $236,000,000, including: Hughes Maintenance at
$9,000,000 (cost of maintenance until Fall, 2018), the CSU
construction estimate of $189,000,000, and a minimum 20%
cost overrun (that every concrete stadium has had) of
$38,000,000. If donations are $42,500,000, Net Cost is a
$193,500,000 revenue bond. With “program at best breaks
even,” the GF pays $332,600,000; with “top 25 ranks and
profits,” the GF pays $192,600,000.

Campus P3: Cost equals the equivalent of 
$15,900,000/year/30 years

Initial Cost is $295,000,000, including: Hughes Maintenance of
$9,000,000, CSU’s construction estimate of $225,000,000, a
20% cost overrun of $45,000,000, and a Debt Reserve Fund
(financed either privately or by CSU) of $16,000,000. Net Costs
first include $28,000,000 for Hughes Maintenance and Debt
Reserve (if financed). Second, the “lease” payments—after
applying $47,500,000 in donations—are $477,000,000
($15,900,000/year/30 years). With “program at best breaks
even,” the GF pays $505,000,000; with “top 25 ranks and
profits,” the GF pays $265,000,000.

What about promoter CLS’s revenue projections? Forget them.
Their unrealistic analysis pretends the football program’s free.
But program profit and not projected revenue determines the
stadium’s cost to the General Fund. Boise State (in a stadium
now having everything CSU wants) gives an apt example of
“program profit corresponding to top 25 ranks,” $6,800,000
revenue above program costs for 2012 (source, Sportsmoney).
If the Rams have tremendous success most seasons, earnings like Boise’s would provide about $240,000,000 profit, over 30 years, towards a stadium. (That’s factored in above.)

Remember, that in attendance, location, admissions, game‐day
experience, donations, etc., sports economists see no benefit in
this project realistic enough to justify spending general funds.
And Options 3 and 4 seriously harm the General Fund.
Remember also, though the local economy benefits
temporarily from any CSU building project (Options 2‐4), the
opposite’s true for students. They will have to pay for it. So
honesty about costs matters.

Registered voters disapprove of the main campus stadium

In July 2014, SOSH paid for a unbiased, scientific poll of registered Ft Collins voters.

One question was asked by Triton Polling and Research:

What do you think of the proposal to build a new football stadium on CSU’s main campus?

59.9% of the respondents (1099) stated moderately or strongly disapproved.

See the results of the poll at the attached link.

triton poll

Link to download the video of the event: