Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
We need a Sugar daddy like Oregon and Okie state. Someone has to be out there
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Downward spiral: Once a powerhouse, CU football falls to BCS basement
- Thread starter RSSBot
- Start date
liverflukes
Resident Bear
We´re banning you if Ty Wallace picks Cal over CU! Consider yourself warned!
You can ban me or throw me out...your choice
CU is in the lower third of the PAC in terms of facilities.
The increase in assistant pay came at the expense of pay to the HC and coordinators. If Embree isn't the lowest paid HC in the PAC he is very close, even with the increases in pay to assistants we are in the lower half and again likely in the lower third.
Nobody is asking us to admit KSU level recruits or guys like Okie State who can't read. At the same time our admissions for athletes are significantly tougher than Stanford and Cal and those admissions haven't seemed to hurt the value of a diploma from either school.
CU doesn't have to be another Texas or Oregon in terms of facilities upgrades. Those schools don't have and could never buy some of things that Boulder offers recruits.
What CU does have to have is a plan for improvement and competitiveness and have the leadership to put that plan into motion rather than sit back and talk about grand futures while doing nothing.
As to faculty support, no school has 100% of the faculty behind athletics and the culture at CU is even further from that than most. On the other hand a successful athletic program has been proven to have certain benefits for the university and the chancelors office can and should take the lead in communicating this message to the faculty, building as high a level of support as possible.
In my mind DiStephano has been an abject failure in the leadership department. Not only has this harmed the athletic department but the university as a whole.
You can make the arguement that our facilities and support were adequete in the 1980s and 90's and even in 2001. If this is a valid arguement lets return faculty to support and compensation comparable to those eras. Lets also stop all investment in laboratories, technology, etc. since what we had was competitive. Stop buying new materials for the library other than what is needed to replace what wears out with comparable items.
Times change, what is needed to be competitive changes, to ignore that is to live in past and be left behind there.
The increase in assistant pay came at the expense of pay to the HC and coordinators. If Embree isn't the lowest paid HC in the PAC he is very close, even with the increases in pay to assistants we are in the lower half and again likely in the lower third.
Nobody is asking us to admit KSU level recruits or guys like Okie State who can't read. At the same time our admissions for athletes are significantly tougher than Stanford and Cal and those admissions haven't seemed to hurt the value of a diploma from either school.
CU doesn't have to be another Texas or Oregon in terms of facilities upgrades. Those schools don't have and could never buy some of things that Boulder offers recruits.
What CU does have to have is a plan for improvement and competitiveness and have the leadership to put that plan into motion rather than sit back and talk about grand futures while doing nothing.
As to faculty support, no school has 100% of the faculty behind athletics and the culture at CU is even further from that than most. On the other hand a successful athletic program has been proven to have certain benefits for the university and the chancelors office can and should take the lead in communicating this message to the faculty, building as high a level of support as possible.
In my mind DiStephano has been an abject failure in the leadership department. Not only has this harmed the athletic department but the university as a whole.
You can make the arguement that our facilities and support were adequete in the 1980s and 90's and even in 2001. If this is a valid arguement lets return faculty to support and compensation comparable to those eras. Lets also stop all investment in laboratories, technology, etc. since what we had was competitive. Stop buying new materials for the library other than what is needed to replace what wears out with comparable items.
Times change, what is needed to be competitive changes, to ignore that is to live in past and be left behind there.
No. We do not "need" that. We won without one before and we can win without one again. Those two programs were the poster children for mediocrity before T Boone and Phil came along with their big dollars. They'll go right back there once they're gone, too. What we need is an unbreakable commitment from the administration to do what it takes to support a first rate athletic program. That's what they have at places like Ohio State, Florida, Alabama, Texas, and Michigan. They do not accept mediocrity in those places. They don't preach "patience" in Austin. They don't commit to being "competitive" in Tuscaloosa. They go out and do it. And when something isn't working, they change it. That's what we need. Not a talking head talking about being competitive.
A sugar daddy would be nice but a comprehensive plan to make use of what we have available right now and carry it on into the future would be better. That is something we could control as well.
Accountability is a good point, mixes in with the lack of committment or general lack of direction. If you set no public goals, there´s nothing to fall short of and hence no need to hold anyone accountable.
Deleted member 807
Guest
It's predictable that criticism of DiStephano, Benson & BoR ultimately turns to the fans and the big donors.
Here's my take.
1) If DiStephano actually said that he is personally committed to taking a leadership role in building a champion football program, the donors would be more inclined to follow.
Imagine if DiStephano actually said that he measures his legacy at CU against his ability to deliver a national championship. Then he laid out a road map and a timeline including facilities, academic requirements, and athletic director expectations and salaries. Then he tirelessly sold that plan to anyone who would listen. This kind of leadership would generate better results than a squishy and politically safe "extremely committed to being competitive" position.
2) For CU to incubate jumbo donors, then CU has got to re-engineer its curriculum towards producing business titans. CU does not generate Phil Knight or T Boone Pickens or Sam Walton. CU is primarily focused on obtaining government grants. The school missed the boat on the biggest industries in the world; fossil energy, automotive, and real estate development. It is not an apex institution in the development if software, financial services, or agriculture. The school turns it's back on tourism and retail. CU is not going to generate billionaires by cranking out accountants, lawyers, and engineers destined for middle management.
This is not a chicken and egg argument. It's the role of DiStephano, Benson and the BoR to shape the vision for the school. This is not the role of as yet unidentified billionaires who may or may never come forward absent visionary school leadership.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Yes.
There is Chipoltle.
There is ex-Lehman CEO Fult.
There is apple co-founder Steve Wazniak.
There is Ball Aerospace, Crocs, and Storage Tek. There is Ted Turner's buffalo hurd, Robert Redford and the South Park duo.
But of this population, and others, none are publically spearheading any effort to pick CU athletics up off it's ass.
His name is Steve Ells and he's a very hard guy to get in touch with. I knew him personally in college and can't even get his voice mail. Either that, or he just doesn't want to talk to me.
He doesn't hate jocks and athletics. Back in school, he was right there with the rest of us at the games. I don't think it's a high priority for him right now, though. You did notice that Chipotle is a stadium sponsor, right?
The thing I see as the biggest failure is that CU does not have a donor culture. There's outreach that needs to happen. There needs to be a base built of thousands more people who kick in even 100 bucks a year. My biggest complaint with how CU administers this is that it allows each school within the university to maintain its own alumni contact lists without sharing them with the AD. Other athletic departments actually have access to up-to-date contact lists. It was shocking to me when I found out that our AD has to scramble on its own to piece together an alumni contact list.
Buffellow85
Well-Known Member
I get a call every year from the Business School and the Alumi Association asking for a donation. The only time I hear from the AD is when I ask for information, and they follow up with either a phone call or I receive something in the mail.
My understanding is that they're not supposed to solicit from alumni unless the alumnus reached out to the AD.
Deleted member 807
Guest
What would Buddy Jones do?
Buffellow85
Well-Known Member
That's dumb.
You would think they could get around it by having someone from each school calling (as a third party)on behalf of the AD
and asu, az and usc
Why did we stop doing doing this anyway? Some other Pac schools like USC, Oregon and Cal must be doing this, and they're all AAU members. If we don't have relaxed admissions and academic standards for the football program then that is a big issue in our ability to recruit many top athletes.
FWIW CU just announced they added a new Assistant VP of Fund Raising to the AD today. 11 years experience in raising 67 million for Michigan. I take that as yet another sign that the administration is finally recognizing that they need to do something about taking athletics seriously.