Barnett in a VERY candid interview on 104.3 Right Now! Bohn to Follow.

[Bolond]

Miscommunication strategies are being analyzed, to prevent further communication between Hawk and the media, overall the interview was AWESOME, and we're soon to be at the tip of the spear...

 

[Darth Snow]

Hawk has no chance? As long as he is saying stupid things like "the program was burned to the ground" and it was "like KSU before Snyder" he doesn't, no... But witch trial? I don't think quoting what the man said ON THE RADIO and commenting on it is exactly a witch trial.... :huh:

no. anything negative = witch trial and nazi hunt. also, somebody left the site cause we are mean to public figures.

 

[Johnny Juzang]

Bohn is doing yeoman's work today following his idiot coach on a tour of local media and doing his level best to clean up after hawkins. Bohn's job is exceedingly difficult right now, and he's doing it quite well, going above and beyond the call of duty.

 

[Darth Snow]

Bohn is doing yeoman's work today following his idiot coach on a tour of local media and doing his level best to clean up after hawkins. Bohn's job is exceedingly difficult right now, and he's doing it quite well, going above and beyond the call of duty.

:yeahthat:

Props to bohn. I sure as hell can't imagine doing his job right now. Especially as livid as he must be that he is not looking for a new coach atm.

 

[2HellNback]

Whether Barnett deserved to be fired is one thing... But, he DID NOT in anyway deserve the be blacklisted like he has been. He is a good coach, and he just got caught saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Too bad. Good interview.

If Barnett was fired for "PERFORMANCE" how the **** does Squawkins have a job? Made a good point, if it was for the outside stuff they wouldn't have had to pay him.
---

Holy hell... We almost had Jeremy Maclin.

 

[Buffnik]

Tonight, I believe that GB was trying to accomplish 2 things:

1- Put pressure on the Chancellor, President and Regents to be supportive of the AD and create an environment in which our sports programs can thrive.

2- Protect his legacy, and more so, go to bat for all the players and assistant coaches that served under him.

I believe we are missing an opportunity here. The focus of this thread is on #2 (and how it can be used to rip on Hawkins), when the more important thing to focus on is #1. We should all be emailing DiStefano, Benson and the Regents (especially if you live in a Regent's voting district) to say that you want them to give our athletic programs greater leniency in admissions and more tutors/counselors support.

 

[Darth Snow]

Tonight, I believe that GB was trying to accomplish 2 things:

1- Put pressure on the Chancellor, President and Regents to be supportive of the AD and create an environment in which our sports programs can thrive.

2- Protect his legacy, and more so, go to bat for all the players and assistant coaches that served under him.

I believe we are missing an opportunity here. The focus of this thread is on #2 (and how it can be used to rip on Hawkins), when the more important thing to focus on is #1. We should all be emailing DiStefano, Benson and the Regents (especially if you live in a Regent's voting district) to say that you want them to give our athletic programs greater leniency in admissions and more tutors/counselors support.

we are just a message board. Benson doesn't give a **** about athletics, the best thing we could do is vote his ass out. He won't listen to ****ing emails, or ever read them.

 

[Timbuff10]

You guys should go back and read your posts. This is the Salem Witch trials all over again. Hawk has no chance. This is pathetic. I'm really apalled.

He already used them up! But I am curious as to how many he needs.

If you are right though, then get rid of him and let someone else have a shot.

 

[SINKRATZ]

we are just a message board. Benson doesn't give a **** about athletics, the best thing we could do is vote his ass out. He won't listen to ****ing emails, or ever read them.

Uh,you don't vote for University President unless you happen to be a regent, but I agree that Benson/Distephano are the problem here.

 

[Jens1893]

Is there a power struggle between MB and DH?

 

[Timbuff10]

Is there a power struggle between MB and DH?

Obviously! Although you can throw Benson and DeStephano on Hawks side too.

Did anyone hear how Bohn denied Sandy Clough's rumors tonight. So who do you trust? Bohn who we know has been part of misleading Buff nation through the form of omission, or Clough and Fowler? I don't know about Clough's cred but I am thinking you can take Fowler's to the bank.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

clough is a moron who thinks he knows more than his pea sized brain could possibly comprehend ... but what rumor are you talking about

 

[BuffLuke80]

Well, everything is a mess for sure. The way questions arent answered directly and danced around, tells you alot. Some suggested witch hunt, perhaps. Clearly there are some issues with the working relationships of the CU admins. Hawk and Bohn want this fixed, win some ****ing games. When it comes down to it, that is all fans give a **** about. Sure we want the players to graduate but I doubt 50,000 are gonna show up to see a student athlete take a damn midterm or something. Witch hunt or not, Hawk brought this on himself. This isn't 20 years ago, he better start winning or he will get fired. It comes with the territory, he knows that. Lastly, I think it would help Hawk a great deal just to stfu. Every word he says is being dissected 100 different ways, just shut up already. I think he has made enough stupid comments lately and pissing off the guys that played and coached here is flat ****ing stupid. I read just the other day how much they need the fans, ex players and alumni, etc.. If CU does, then put a muzzle on juicebox. All he is doing is pissing people off and it dont matter if he didnt mean to. Perception is reality these days. Long story short, winning will fix alot of problems in the AD. ESPN isnt gonna do a story on how CU sucks in football but they have a good team gpa. Nobody cares, it begins and ends with winning period.

 

[Timbuff10]

clough is a moron who thinks he knows more than his pea sized brain could possibly comprehend ... but what rumor are you talking about

The "rumor" that the money was there. Fowler reported during the Okie St game that there was a private donor that would cover the $3mm. After the interviews with Al tonight, one of Clough's sources from the AD told him the same thing that money was not an issue and that Bohn had the money and was ready to get rid of Hawk until Benson shot that idea down.

Bohn then heard this and called the show at about 10PM tonight and said the money was not there and that a very small group was ready to contribute less than $10,000 to a Hawkins buyout.

They are trying to spin it now like the people who want Hawk out are a very small minority. Whole thing makes me sick.

 

[JimmyBuff]

Bohn then heard this and called the show at about 10PM tonight and said the money was not there and that a very small group was ready to contribute less than $10,000 to a Hawkins buyout.
.

Bohn really called in and said that to Clough?.. Hope the fan puts that interview up on the website..


I don't think someone in the athletic dept would lie to Clough about the money.. It would be dumb..

 

[BuffaloChuck]

Hawk's "burning down" phrase is going to end up like "10 wins no excuses". I think CU Football is seeing someone using a phrase about what HE is doing. It takes an arsonist to know a real fire when he sees one.

I was wondering why Benson was carrying around gasoline cans.

"Meet Mr. Match..."

 

[pwbuffan]

That's because all the coaches have sucked going back 40 years.

Have to disagree and that is a silly comment.

 

[Duff Man]

Interesting thread. I was never a big fan of Barnett (thought he should have been fired after the 2003 season), but props to him on giving some honest answers.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

came in a couple years ago, fair enough on the athletic stuff.

Actually it's not fair enough on the athletic stuff. Benson is in a very difficult position with the state. State funding to higher education was just cut, the entire world is in a recession and he can't justify buying out a coach at a public institution. The media and the state legislation won't give 2 craps that the funding came from private sources and not the university or state or that overall funding for CU is over 93% non-state generated. CU will be vilified for the arrogance of throwing money away for the second coach in a row.

Benson is in large part a politician first and he has to minimize the overall negative affect on CU as a university. We all saw what a failure at that position will do to CU from the Betsy and Judith days.

Fund raising is another crucial roll of the President. While athletic donations are significant the large majority of university funding have nothing to do with athletics. Benson had to gauge whether the **** storm that would result at the media and state levels would do more to hurt the university in the short run than letting the football program possibly suffer another down year. The buyout will be much lower next year and the public affect much less also.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

I'm not sure that Benson was so short sighted. CU has a budget mess and a buyout wasn't politically feasible in his eyes. I understand that. I don't like it and wish that weren't the case, but I understand it.

I think the college football arms race will be taken down a notch or two in the next few years. If you haven't read it elsewhere, Florida is insolvent, California is insolvent, Oregon's insolvent, Michigan's insolvent....

Colorado's actually in ok financial shape, comparatively speaking.

You beat me to it, should have read the next page.:smile2:

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Actually it's not fair enough on the athletic stuff. Benson is in a very difficult position with the state. State funding to higher education was just cut, the entire world is in a recession and he can't justify buying out a coach at a public institution. The media and the state legislation won't give 2 craps that the funding came from private sources and not the university or state or that overall funding for CU is over 93% non-state generated. CU will be vilified for the arrogance of throwing money away for the second coach in a row.

Benson is in large part a politician first and he has to minimize the overall negative affect on CU as a university. We all saw what a failure at that position will do to CU from the Betsy and Judith days.

Fund raising is another crucial roll of the President. While athletic donations are significant the large majority of university funding have nothing to do with athletics. Benson had to gauge whether the **** storm that would result at the media and state levels would do more to hurt the university in the short run than letting the football program possibly suffer another down year. The buyout will be much lower next year and the public affect much less also.

Can someone help me out with this?

Why does CU continue to put on this dog and pony show of not wanting to use private donations to pay off a coach? It has been my impression that - at most universities - the coaches get paid or fired based upon private donations.

So, assuming it is true that $4mil was "raised" by private donations to pay off Hawkins contract, and - on top of that - Hawkins agreed to a reduced buyout of only $2.5mil. In that scenario - there was enough private money to pay not only for Hawkins but also for his dip**** Boise assistant coaches.

Why is it bad to just come out and admit - this buyout was funded at least in part with private donation money?? I mean - so much of the coach's salary is based upon money from private parties (NIKE and from endorsement deals, and so forth) -- the actual money out of the state's pocket for the head football coach is really only about $200k per year. The rest is part of agreements with third parties who also have contracts with the University / Athletic Department.

Not to mention - there must be 100 different ways to handle this situation to force Hawkins' hand. ****can all of his assistant coaches. Reassign Hawkins to another position in the University. There are plenty of other ways to deal with his position and his problem.

 

[Liver]

Can someone help me out with this?

Why does CU continue to put on this dog and pony show of not wanting to use private donations to pay off a coach? It has been my impression that - at most universities - the coaches get paid or fired based upon private donations.

So, assuming it is true that $4mil was "raised" by private donations to pay off Hawkins contract, and - on top of that - Hawkins agreed to a reduced buyout of only $2.5mil. In that scenario - there was enough private money to pay not only for Hawkins but also for his dip**** Boise assistant coaches.

Why is it bad to just come out and admit - this buyout was funded at least in part with private donation money?? I mean - so much of the coach's salary is based upon money from private parties (NIKE and from endorsement deals, and so forth) -- the actual money out of the state's pocket for the head football coach is really only about $200k per year. The rest is part of agreements with third parties who also have contracts with the University / Athletic Department.

Not to mention - there must be 100 different ways to handle this situation to force Hawkins' hand. ****can all of his assistant coaches. Reassign Hawkins to another position in the University. There are plenty of other ways to deal with his position and his problem.

it is actually worse than this. NO money from the state or the taxpayer goes to the CUAD. the CUAD is self-funded through ticket sales, donations, tv revenue, etc. the CUAD had to borrow some money from the CU Fund for the purpose of paying out barnett and to cover the shortfall due to tharp's construction of the club seats. but, that LOAN is being paid off, with interest.

the issue has never been the ACTUAL use of taxpayer money. the issue has always been the perception that it is "wrong" to write a 3mm check to a football coach at the same time the school is slashing academic stuff.

at least this is my understanding of the whole mess...

 

[pwbuffan]

What is expected of the Head Coach????

Bohn:
great ambassador for the team/program/institution
recruiter
molder of young men
kids graduate
academically committed

It's a tall order. We are going to work with Dan so he can focus more on football going forward.

Notice that with a loser like Dan as HC one must leave the wins and losses out of the equation.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Can someone help me out with this?

Why does CU continue to put on this dog and pony show of not wanting to use private donations to pay off a coach? It has been my impression that - at most universities - the coaches get paid or fired based upon private donations.

So, assuming it is true that $4mil was "raised" by private donations to pay off Hawkins contract, and - on top of that - Hawkins agreed to a reduced buyout of only $2.5mil. In that scenario - there was enough private money to pay not only for Hawkins but also for his dip**** Boise assistant coaches.

Why is it bad to just come out and admit - this buyout was funded at least in part with private donation money?? I mean - so much of the coach's salary is based upon money from private parties (NIKE and from endorsement deals, and so forth) -- the actual money out of the state's pocket for the head football coach is really only about $200k per year. The rest is part of agreements with third parties who also have contracts with the University / Athletic Department.

Not to mention - there must be 100 different ways to handle this situation to force Hawkins' hand. ****can all of his assistant coaches. Reassign Hawkins to another position in the University. There are plenty of other ways to deal with his position and his problem.

The state legislation and media have had an adversarial relationship with CU since Gee. The political and media flap resulting from the non-scandal hurt the university as a whole due to the negative perception true or not. No matter what Benson or the AD says about the funding being private it will be used against them.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

The state legislation and media have had an adversarial relationship with CU since Gee. The political and media flap resulting from the non-scandal hurt the university as a whole due to the negative perception true or not. No matter what Benson or the AD says about the funding being private it will be used against them.

OK -- so what?

The State of Colorado only contributes to 8% of the University's operating budget.

What are they going to do, slash another 1%?!!?!

Ooooooooh!!! Take nothing away from nothing, and let me know what you come up with.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

OK -- so what?

The State of Colorado only contributes to 8% of the University's operating budget.

What are they going to do, slash another 1%?!!?!

Ooooooooh!!! Take nothing away from nothing, and let me know what you come up with.

CU lost grant opportunities due to the negative perception last time. **** the 8%, grants keep the university alive.

 

[Liver]

OK -- so what?

The State of Colorado only contributes to 8% of the University's operating budget.

What are they going to do, slash another 1%?!!?!

Ooooooooh!!! Take nothing away from nothing, and let me know what you come up with.

yes, this would be one POV (which i am sympathetic to). but, the other side of it is "what happens if CU does cut the ties to the state?" and, then the economy rebounds, etc. all kinds of state money ends up at csu and it eventually becomes the "state" flagship school, while CU becomes a neat little private school in boulder for rich kids from the east and from california?

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

CU lost grant opportunities due to the negative perception last time. **** the 8%, grants keep the university alive.

How much?

If the state legislature's annual contribution is 8% - how much comes from these grants? And where do the grants come from? The state? Federal grants? Private enterprise?

Sorry, I'm having a hard time buying all this.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

yes, this would be one POV (which i am sympathetic to). but, the other side of it is "what happens if CU does cut the ties to the state?" and, then the economy rebounds, etc. all kinds of state money ends up at csu and it eventually becomes the "state" flagship school, while CU becomes a neat little private school in boulder for rich kids from the east and from california?

Which is basically what it is now, right?

I have no doubt the economy WILL rebound, someday. But is the state suddenly going to start sinking millions into education? Doubtful, imo.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

How much?

If the state legislature's annual contribution is 8% - how much comes from these grants? And where do the grants come from? The state? Federal grants? Private enterprise?

Sorry, I'm having a hard time buying all this.

I've heard numbers close to 50% of the university's funding is from grants. The grants come from a variety of public and private sources and CU actually admitted that the last flap cost them a lot of opportunities. I have a friend who's sole job is writing some of the grant proposals and was told directly that the affect of the non-scandal and national attention was very noticeable.