I don’t disagree, I just wonder if the increased applications associated with a strong football program are really coming from “top applicants”?
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!
#Fire Coach Dorrell
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
fair point to question. Lacking any more data, I think's it's not unreasonable to assume the distribution of the increased applicants (wrt academic qualifications) is similar to the current pool.
But more applicants that are similar to the current pool, with the same enrollment numbers and admission standards just means fewer of the borderline applicants getting accepted to make room for more of the "top" applicants.
Maybe, and not to get “we should be curing cancer instead” here, but I suspect the quality of applications coming in as a result of a strong football team is different than after a faculty member wins a Nobel Prize for example.
I would question if those additional applications really are on par with current applicants.
What I hope is happening right now
1. RG is calling high-level donors and asking them if they will donate to help cover the buyout IF he can pull in a Tier1 or 2 option to replace Dorrell at the end of the year.
2. RG is clearing the hurdles with the administration, letting them know that additional funding will be coming in to help with the buyout, BUT he will need to increase the salary pool available for assistants.
3. RG comes up with a short-list (5-8 names) that would meet the qualifications to make the donors happy. Kick the tires and see what happens.
4. If you can't pull someone in from the shortlist, RG should let KD know that he needs to make significant staff changes this offseason and that he is absolutely coaching for his job in 2022.
1. RG is calling high-level donors and asking them if they will donate to help cover the buyout IF he can pull in a Tier1 or 2 option to replace Dorrell at the end of the year.
2. RG is clearing the hurdles with the administration, letting them know that additional funding will be coming in to help with the buyout, BUT he will need to increase the salary pool available for assistants.
3. RG comes up with a short-list (5-8 names) that would meet the qualifications to make the donors happy. Kick the tires and see what happens.
4. If you can't pull someone in from the shortlist, RG should let KD know that he needs to make significant staff changes this offseason and that he is absolutely coaching for his job in 2022.
I feel like you're stereotyping a bit here with no real evidence. Maybe some kids who want to major in engineering end up choosing CU over Mines because they also want the big time football atmosphere. Maybe a nationally relevant football program starts attracting more people that would otherwise go to USC or UCLA? Just imagine more applicants like yourself and not just a bunch of barely literate mouth breathers.
What if these barely literate mouth breathers excel in pass pro? Shouldn't that be taken into consideration?
Always BUFF
I post stupid ****
By definition the SEC< per the PAC12
I am absolutely stereotyping here because we simply don’t have the evidence. I feel pretty comfortable saying that generally (maybe not exclusively, I’m sure there are exceptions) someone who weighs football team success in their college decision is likely to have a lower priority on academics and that would be reflected in the pool of people applying to schools following football success.
I don't think "weighing football heavily" factors into very many kids choices at all.
But athletic success and failure does drive even general perception of a school. Oklahoma and Alabama are perceived by many as being much better schools than they actually are, and conversely, Indiana and Purdue's reputations are harmed a bit by their athletic failures.
And success on the field isn't limited to helping "blue blood" schools - people are often shocked at how academically terrible BYU and Boise State actually are. A lot people know BSU isn't an academic juggernaut, but they're often surprised to learn it's not much more than a glorified community college. BYU is often a bigger shock, because most people don't have an inkling at how terrible they are academically.
For well over 100 years, the University of Colorado was pretty good at both academics and athletics. Then the administration gave up trying to excel at the sport that matters most to public perception.
I actually think it's getting to the point that going the University of Chicago route would actually be *better* for the school's overall reputation than continuing to be a laughingstock is.
Yeah, the kind of people who perceive Oklahoma and Alabama to be better schools than they are probably aren’t going to raise the quality of the pool of applicants at CU.
I think you're overestimating one group and underestimating the other.
Also: we're talking about 17 year olds - don't lose sight of that.
We’re talking about kids who aren’t currently applying to CU, but would if the football team were better. I still feel comfortable saying those are not likely the type of kids who raise the overall quality of the applicant pool.
To the people who look at academic rankings... it doesn't matter.
A lower acceptance rate = better school.
Also, you need to consider this factor as well:
Affirmative action for male students is new 'dirty little secret'
Data from National Student Clearinghouse reveals female students accounted for 59.5% of all college enrollments in spring 2021, compared to 40.5% men.
You’re saying a lower acceptance rate improves the academic prestige of a school even if the quality of the students being admitted is unchanged? I’m not sure I buy that.To the people who look at academic rankings... it doesn't matter.
A lower acceptance rate = better school.
Also, you need to consider this factor as well:
Affirmative action for male students is new 'dirty little secret'
Data from National Student Clearinghouse reveals female students accounted for 59.5% of all college enrollments in spring 2021, compared to 40.5% men.www.dailymail.co.uk
And I’ll take it from the article you posted that you believe an improved football program would increase applications from men whose enrollment has declined compared to women. That doesnt appear to be an issue at CU which is about 55/45 male/female and has been that way since the 1980’s.
You don't have to "buy" it.
Almost every ranking for undergraduate universities ranks schools higher if they have a lower acceptance rate.
It's a straight percentage shot: # accepted / # of applicants.
That's it. That's the input.
There are other inputs, but acceptance rate is a big one.
edit: what skibum said
Ok, if you’re concerned only with rankings that’s fine, I suppose it helps. If you’re interested in improving the quality of applicant pool so you can admit students more likely to be successful and possibly more likely to donate to the university then acceptance rate doesn’t make a difference. I’m sure both are relevant for university administrators.
At a place like CU, they probably get 10,000 or more applications every year. A certain percentage would be accepted anywhere. A certain percentage wouldn’t be accepted anywhere. Where a school admissions department makes its living is finding the students who fit somewhere between those two extremes and picking out the ones who are most likely to attend if offered admissions d declining those who might be good students but aren’t really all that likely to attend if offered. Having just gone through this with my own child, it’s a fascinating process.
RG is not discussing this with top donors. KD will get to hire his own OC before he is fired.
You're probably right. I just hope that path doesn't set the program back even further.
I think you are looking at it a little too narrowly. The benefit of a strong football program goes way beyond attracting only hard core football fans. It is essentially marketing the university as a whole. Name and place recognition that get people to consider a school they never would have thought of. They may see the view from Folsom of the campus and the flatirons, the blue skies, and the students all having a good time and look in to what CU has to offer. Most of these kids wouldn't be coming to CU so they can watch the football games.
cu3x
Well-Known Member
KD has coached a total 10 CU games.
Our players are struggling, but they all have good credentials/backgrounds.
The coaches' whole lives are football - they haven't got the Xs and Os down - yet.
No reason the team can't come out and play a solid game against usc.
Some of CU's fan sux.
Our players are struggling, but they all have good credentials/backgrounds.
The coaches' whole lives are football - they haven't got the Xs and Os down - yet.
No reason the team can't come out and play a solid game against usc.
Some of CU's fan sux.
This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen this play out a handful of times in the last 25 years. The writing is on the wall. This is only going to get worse.
Bliff Cranch
Well-Known Member
I’ll give you one, stone-cold absolute reason why. Their OL is incapable of playing anything remotely close to a solid game. The athletes on the USC defensive front seven will dominate them. Stunts and blitzes on every play. CU will have no answer.
But the Flatirons!!