Jack Graham has a vision of Saturdays in Fort Collins, game-day afternoons full of pomp and circumstance and tradition. And winning football. Lots and lots of winning.

But nowhere in his flights of fancy is there room for Hughes Stadium, which, in the mind of the Colorado State University’s new athletic director, is part of a bigger problem that desperately needs fixing.

“I took this job because I was so frustrated with the way athletics was performing. Not just because we were losing, but the bigger issue was that we were an anchor on the reputation of this university,” Graham said. “I was tired of it. I expressed my frustration, and I asked myself, ‘What has to happen here to change that dynamic.’ “

No. 1 on his list: A new football stadium on campus to replace the aging Hughes, which is south of the campus on the edge of the foothills.

Deb James has a vision, too, one forged from an almost lifelong love affair with CSU, where she went to school, and of Fort Collins, the university’s home, where she lives.

“After I graduated, I knew there wasn’t anywhere else I wanted to live,” she said.

James is the community outreach chair of a group called Save Our Stadium Hughes, which opposes a new stadium. She believes Graham’s vision has a “fatal flaw” — a lack of understanding about a major aspect of the dynamic he’s so intent on changing.

“He didn’t do the demographics; he doesn’t understand Fort Collins,” she said. “This is a small community, we do things a certain way, and this is not our way. I believe with all my heart that there are more people on our side than his and because of that, in the end, you can’t move forward.”

The debate over the proposed $250 million, 42,000-seat stadium has become a defining moment in the eyes of many students, faculty, city residents and alumni. Pro and con signs populate lawns across the city. There are billboards, petition drives and social-media campaigns.

As one speaker told the SOS Hughes student group: This is an issue that will change the culture of CSU forever — academically, socially, athletically and financially.

Campus luminaries such as former CSU professor Tom Sutherland, who was held hostage in Lebanon for more than six years by the Islamic Jihad, have come out in opposition to the new stadium.

On the flip side, stadium advocate group Be Bold CSU states on its website, “The choice isn’t between success and failure: It’s between choosing risk and striving for greatness, or risking nothing and being certain of mediocrity.”

The two sides have staked out their ground.

Supporters like Graham say:

• A new stadium will put alumni, athletic donors and football fans on campus and get them more engaged with the university.

• The excitement and new technology offered by a modern stadium will help recruit athletes, create game-day traditions and raise the school’s national profile.

• No tuition, no student fees and no taxpayer money will be used to build the new facility.

Opponents like James say:

• Streets near the site of the proposed stadium are already congested, and parking problems on game days would spill over into nearby neighborhoods.

• Negative effects on local businesses could be huge, as business access is restricted by game-day traffic and stadium retail outlets offer stiff new competition.

• The community has many unmet needs, including infrastructure deficiencies, issues surrounding the homeless and those without health insurance, and spending millions — even in private funds — on an entertainment venue “is unconscionable.”

In some ways, this is the calm before the storm — the day this fall when CSU president Tony Frank decides whether the project moves forward. Right now, much of the work is being done behind the scenes, with subcommittees of the stadium advisory committee finishing their work and opponents recruiting to their cause.

The last time both sides got together, late in May at a stadium advisory committee meeting, the pro-stadium faction may have scored a point or two with a number of dazzling displays.

There were artists’ renditions of what the stadium would look like, the vibrancy that Graham is seeking almost oozing through the ink. There was talk about how environmentally friendly the structure would be and how, included among the luxury suites and private boxes, would be recruiting areas, not just for athletic officials, but for department heads who wanted to impress upon potential faculty or students how great the university is.

The new building would be located on the south end of campus on space now occupied mostly by parking lots. School officials say one prominent structure on the site, the Holley Plant Environmental Research Center, would be incorporated into the design of the new stadium. Dormitories eventually may be built in the vicinity.

Proponents also say the stadium will be available for other sports, such as soccer and lacrosse, and it could be home to a bookstore or even a microbrewery. The stadium is expected to generate $1.5 million from each home football game.

James said she understands how declines in state funding and other concerns have left CSU in need of new revenue streams, and she acknowledges the chance that an upgrade in image could lead to money from television, or perhaps even a new athletic conference.

But, she argues, “going from zero to 100” isn’t prudent.

“You don’t say, ‘We’re not selling enough widgets,’ and then decide that the answer is to build an entirely new factory — business doesn’t work that way,” she said.

Frank has laid out four parameters that must be met if the stadium is to be built, among them not putting the structure on existing open green space or impinging on the view of the mountains. There’s also a proviso that the committee must take into consideration the impact of a new stadium on the people in the area where it’s built.

The fourth is that the structure be built entirely with private funds, and although the cost seems daunting, Graham said he’s confident it can be done. At the last committee meeting, a presentation by a feasibility group hired by the university estimated that as much as $490 million could be raised for the project.

While a sizable portion of that amount would come from corporate sponsorships, CSU officials believe a large portion would also come from average citizens choosing to write checks.

CSU vice president Brett Anderson says no one has or will ask for money until there is officially a project underway.

However, he adds that cultivating donors, particularly those giving at the highest levels, is a process that can take years, which means there won’t be any ribbon-cutting or shovels in the ground any time soon.

Anthony Cotton: 303-954-1292 or acotton@denverpost.com