1st CD is Denver, not Boulder.What makes you think his replacement will be any better? This is Boulder we're talking about.
I’m not sure how many university’s have a regent elected board, but I can almost guarantee this happens at Schools who take their football seriously. Not saying this is the way to go, but at some point you have to play dirty in today’s current college athletics world.It’s not their job, dude. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with the rest of us trying to get pro-athletics regents elected. I’m 100% in favor of that. Keep the employees of the school out of it.
Oh, I see.He's already an elected official.
Most don't. It's a structure that hurts CU more than it helps (and not just in athletics). This structure was actually identified by a study as being a detriment to a public university a decade or so ago.I’m not sure how many university’s have a regent elected board, but I can almost guarantee this happens at Schools who take their football seriously. Not saying this is the way to go, but at some point you have to play dirty in today’s current college athletics world.
Win win???Not Sure is right - it would do zero good for RG to unofficially push a candidate. Do you think the other regents are going to feel good knowing that RG is out there trying to drive support for a specific candidate? This goes for any University leadership
It is simply a recipe for getting fired or creating truly active resistance to the AD within the BoR.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but food for thought...Not Sure is right - it would do zero good for RG to unofficially push a candidate. Do you think the other regents are going to feel good knowing that RG is out there trying to drive support for a specific candidate? This goes for any University leadership
It is simply a recipe for getting fired or creating truly active resistance to the AD within the BoR.
He buys himself one seat on the BoR... maybe? And meanwhile makes life harder for his boss and sows distrust with the rest of the Board. It is a terrible idea, even if he is allowed to do it.I don't disagree with anything you said, but food for thought...
you SWAG'd earlier ITT that a campaign for regent would cost ~$20k. ADRG makes ~$1m/year base salary, and has $100k/year attendance incentives (plus probably others, but IDK).
if he can make a campaign donation of $40k (double your SWAG) and thereby create a high probability of winning the election for a candidate who supports him achieving those incentives, and there's nothing in his contract that prohibits it (no clue whether or not there is)... I'd have a hard time arguing that it wasn't a smart thing to do.
Yeah, with those two closers, what could possibly go wrong?!I'd like to think RG and even KD are "unofficially" working their contacts to get a candidate to run with the necessary backing
1st CD is Denver, not Boulder.
I'd like to think RG and even KD are "unofficially" working their contacts to get a candidate to run with the necessary backing
Have you ever looked in the politics forum here?Its one of the most liberal districts in the state. Denver is just as capable of putting an anti-athletics loon on the BoR as Boulder is.
Have you ever looked in the politics forum here?
Lots of voices on many sides of the political spectrum, and... they all really want to see the CU football team do well.
Implying that support for athletics is a partisan issue?
Regarding the flagship issue, I continue to wonder about this (especially because it seemed like CU was pretty highly esteemed a few decades ago) - what makes flagship universities like North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, California (Berkeley/UCLA), UT, Wisconsin, UGA so prestigious?This is what scares me.
I want him gone from the regents because I care about CU, and not just athletics. I believe that the flagship university of a state can have a major impact on the quality of life in that state and of it's citizens. The entire CU system has in my view stagnated and the regents have not provided the leadership to move it forward.
Kroll didn't run for regent because he had a driving desire to make CU a better institution. He ran because it was a way to get his name on a ballot for a state government elected office.
At some point in the future we will see him running for the state legislature or even higher office. Something where he can do even more damage in trying to advance his political aspirations.
Is CSU Masters acceptable?
Lots of voices on many sides in the political spectrum? I post in there. You and I both know that isn't true. There are a ton of voices on one side - and they tend to shout down those who don't agree with them to the point where people like me (who don't-regardless of the fact that I switched parties and voted for Biden last November) get shouted down to the point they don't want to fool around in there.
By the way, Denver gave the CU BoR Jack Kroll. If you don't think another woke, anti-athletics loon coming out of there isn't a possibility - you've got another thing coming. One more thing - which political party do Kroll and Shoemaker belong to again? I don't see the Republican members of the BoR pulling the kind of grandstanding **** those two have during their time on the board.
Isn't it? It is for Boulder liberals in charge and the voters who vote for them.Implying that support for athletics is a partisan issue?
Wrong. The regents are elected statewide, so this is not just a “Boulder liberals” problem. Regents are elected by people across the state who have zero connection to the actual university and couldn’t care less (by and large) about CU athletics.Isn't it? It is for Boulder liberals in charge and the voters who vote for them.
If anyone thinks things will improve at CU by voting for the same ilk, they're sadly mistaken.
You are not correct. There are two at large regents elected in statewide elections, then 7 regents that are elected in each respective congressional district.Wrong. The regents are elected statewide, so this is not just a “Boulder liberals” problem. Regents are elected by people across the state who have zero connection to the actual university and couldn’t care less (by and large) about CU athletics.
It’s the worst possible way to choose a board of regents, but here we are.
Yeah. That’s not correct. Only two Regents are elected statewide. The others are elected according to the congressional district they represent.Wrong. The regents are elected statewide, so this is not just a “Boulder liberals” problem. Regents are elected by people across the state who have zero connection to the actual university and couldn’t care less (by and large) about CU athletics.
It’s the worst possible way to choose a board of regents, but here we are.
I understand that, my point is the BoR are not made up of 9 “Boulder liberals” - they are elected from districts across the state and by people who have no connection to the university.You are not correct. There are two at large regents elected in statewide elections, then 7 regents that are elected in each respective congressional district.
This does raise a question, with redistricting about to take affect and CO getting an 8th congressional seat, does the board of regents grow by one? Anyone know?
Edit: I found an "answer". The answer is currently unknown.
I get that, see clarification above.Yeah. That’s not correct. Only two Regents are elected statewide. The others are elected according to the congressional district they represent.
Regarding the flagship issue, I continue to wonder about this (especially because it seemed like CU was pretty highly esteemed a few decades ago) - what makes flagship universities like North Carolina, Florida, Michigan, California (Berkeley/UCLA), UT, Wisconsin, UGA so prestigious?
Yet schools like CU, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona, etc are considered just sort of meh?
What’s the difference ?
I’m genuinely curious why, how can CU climb in that aspect? What would be required?
Gotcha. And yes, the idea that CU is governed by “Boulder liberals” is wholly inaccurate. I know very little about Callie Rennison, who is the current 2nd CD Regent. I suppose the less I know about her, the better. She’s not - to my knowledge anyway - out there making stupid statements about the role of athletics at the university and claiming funds donated to the AD should be used to cure cancer.I get that, see clarification above.