The more I think about it the less sense it actually makes. We are ok losing the ticket revenue in a time when we are staring down the barrel of less revenue from our conference tv contract. And decide to give that revenue to a rival school in a competing conference just so we can say we played the border war that year in football?
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!
Wyoming Gives up Home Game to Travel to CSU for 2026 Opener
- Thread starter OrediggerPoke
- Start date
If it is true that we are not being compensated at all, then that part is another blunder by Tom Burman. He should have either demanded the game be in Laramie or stand pat and let the series resume in 2027.
Did we have to pay UNT anything or does the rescheduling of that game to 2034 mean no payment was necessary?
I would also be curious as to which AD initiated this change.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
We don’t have to pay UNT anything. They agreed to move the game because Indiana is now paying UNT a guarantee to take CSU’s place. Funny thing is, we now play at UNT in 2027 and will have played at their stadium twice before they come here under the original 2 for 2 Burman negotiated with them..
But it is laughable to me that the media is swooning over this as a positive for Wyoming. Undoubtedly moving from 7 to 6 home football games next year means that Wyoming will make less money next year. We make less money next year and bend over backwards to accommodate the school leaving us behind and suing us.
I am sure Burman is eating up all the thumbs up that is being given on social media for this move that makes no sense from any good business standpoint.
EDIT: Correction, we play a 2 for 2 with North Texas but will play there twice before they come here (if they ever do).
Last edited:
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
Check out all of the likes for this move and positive comments on the University’s football social media. He is eating up the comments from all of the naive people that believe this is a good decision.
Even on here, with rather sophisticated fans, the move appears to be generating broad support.
Perception becomes reality and a terrible business move might just get Burman another raise or extension.
Direct response I just got from Mr Burman...
We still have lots of pieces moving in our future schedules. The schedule for 26, 27, 28, 29 are all in flux due to many schools making changes. I believe we will end up in a good place. Ideally we like six home games and six road games. 7th home games have not been as financially beneficial as one may think because our fan base travels so far they done generally attend all seven games. We will likely have more to announce in the coming weeks/months. Thanks
We still have lots of pieces moving in our future schedules. The schedule for 26, 27, 28, 29 are all in flux due to many schools making changes. I believe we will end up in a good place. Ideally we like six home games and six road games. 7th home games have not been as financially beneficial as one may think because our fan base travels so far they done generally attend all seven games. We will likely have more to announce in the coming weeks/months. Thanks
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
Very respectable to get an immediate response.
I am not an AD but I don't generally advise entering into deals simply with a hope and prayer that there may be future deals too to "end up in a good place." If he has CSU coming to Laramie in 2027, then I can see a bit of sense. But if that was the case, then it would almost assuredly have been announced at the same time. I suppose time will tell but I am doubtful we are on anything but the very short end of this stick.
Also - curiously absent - no analysis as to the revenue that a September home game generates versus a November home game. We gave up a September 5th home game and we are presumably keeping our November 28th home game. I am pretty sure that past ticket sales would reflect that September home games are almost always much more profitable (Josh Allen returning as an outlier).
For all his faults, he's always responded to me within 24 hours and I'm not a booster or anything special, nor have I given more than a couple hundred bucks to the CJC. So I do respect him for taking the time to respond to fans even when they are beligerant. I don't know what the break even number is for making money on a game vs losing money. It also includes scheduling expenses so yeah if we pay a P4 team to come here we are going to lose money
rocket city poke
Well-known member
rocket city poke
Well-known member
I do believe they wanted to play CSU, however, if it were somebody everybody knew was good -- Utah, BYU or CU in the opener we would still be playing them. Or even if it were somebody Sawvel thought he could beat -- Akronmonious, . . I can't think of any other highly likely wins against DI programs we could schedule at this point, but if that was the case Sawvel would have wanted the home victory. N. Texas is on the rise, the casual fan doesn't know that and doesn't see them on the same level as a Utah or ByU so losing an opening game against an obscure Texas school sets a really bad tone for the season. UW was happy to avoid that matchup.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
But we play them the very next year (2027) in Denton again. So we aren’t avoiding the matchup as much as we are avoiding playing them at our place.
I guess we can just hope to cover the spread. Because that’s apparently the new Wyoming motto and goal.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
We weren’t paying North Texas anything to come here other than actual travel expenses which are reciprocated when we go there. The contract was a 4 game contract with North Texas (2 at each home) with each team keeping their own home revenues. We just gave the September home game up to bail out Burman’s best friends in Fort Collins.
I sincerely hope there is a part of this deal that isn’t being announced which is CSU coming to Laramie in 2027. Because if there isn’t, I don’t see this as defensible personally.
Last edited:
I don’t have a problem with it. I would rather have seen the FCS game traded out for the sheep, but it was probably a case of weeks available. I also wonder if the renovations to the Hilton Garden Inn played into things as it’s one less place available for fans to stay next football season. Ticket sales aren’t the money maker, especially when it’s only 25,000 seats, so why not trade out for a rivalry? That said, csu needs to make a similar sacrifice in 2027. Probably won’t, but let that be on their shoulders. We’re making a move to keep the rivalry going, hence not trying to add fuel to the pacs fire in litigation, so it’s a smart move. No matter what, the pac did not achieve the goal of dissolving our conference, and as things appear, we’re equal in G6 status, and this game gives us a chance to embarrass them on the debut of their new “superior” conference! I look at it as an opportunity to crush them and their fans on day one!
