dply
Doble hoja
If that was true the football team in Washington DC would be good.
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!
MacIntyre promises better football days ahead for CU
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
If that was true the football team in Washington DC would be good.
dply
Doble hoja
I deal with argus on more occasions than just the football games so I'm probably combining all those experience too. I didn't have any issues with them last year at the games. I did have a huge issue with them last month though.
we had an Argus guy help set up the tailgate once last year.
I'd love to hear a mea culpa from Benson and particularly DiStefano, but I don't think that's a realistic expectation. And that's a big reason why I'm concerned that this new facility will be seen as a panacea when in fact it's only the first of many necessary steps they need to be making.
I'd love to hear a mea culpa from Benson and particularly DiStefano, but I don't think that's a realistic expectation. And that's a big reason why I'm concerned that this new facility will be seen as a panacea when in fact it's only the first of many necessary steps they need to be making.
Deleted member 807
Guest
It seems like campus construction is very linear. One or two big projects at a time. Each department waits it's turn. Dal Ward is built, and then the Law School, then the B-School, then the Williams Village housing, then the Research Park, then the C4C, then the Benson Earth Science, then Visual Arts, then Atlas. Of course the Medical Center, CUCS, and CU Denver get some love. Then with the cycle of some flowering desert cactus that only blooms once every twenty years in a huge spurt of energy, the athletic department get's it's piece of the pie.
For a department that is supposed to be self-sustaining, it makes no sense to me why the athletic department should to be slotted into a rotation in competition with other departments on campus.
I hope that CU gives Rick George enough autonomy to build when we need to build, borrow when we need to borrow, hire and fire coaches when we need to upgrade. As long as CUAD is a profit center with investment decisions built on a cycle of fairness with every other department on campus, we sports fans will see the process of digging out of the hole to be very long term, indeed.
The build and revisit 20-years later model is simply not going to work. This is one cycle I'd like to see broken.
Further infrastructure upgrades will continue with RG in control. He has acknowledged that there is still work to be done in that area, but the AD does not operate with Monopoly money like Oregon, UT, etc. Every aspect of the AD needs upgrading, including Folsom and Balch, but football is priority #1 and everything else is a distant, distant second. 100% of the focus needs to be (and is) on upgrading the aspects of the football facilities that will give immediate help to the on field performance. Once football is as a level of respectability where more and more checks are being written, the other upgrades will come.
Us on this and other fan boards are pretty myopic. We view the "world" from our super fan football world. We are a really small minority in the overall scheme of CU football/athletics. The majority at CU, in Boulder and in the state are ambivalent. CU just needs to develop a small but strong, loyal fan base where they can put 60,000 in the stands every week.
There are things they can do before that happens. They are things that needed to be done 5 years ago.
The neglect of the stadium blows my mind. A coat of paint, replacing rusted signs, replacing rusted bleachers, patching concrete, etc. Those are things that don't require a loan. They don't require regent approval. They require a relatively small amount of money and they require effort. Thats it. Hell they could probably launch a volunteer initiative to get the labor for it. Its not that hard. There are small things that have slipped through the cracks that really need to be addressed.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Further upgrades will continue no matter who is in control. When signage is rusting, and when the press box is an embarrassment, and the rest rooms are a turn off, anyone who can fog a mirror acknowledges that there is still work to be done. Oregon & UT ect. don't have Monopoly money. They have donor money.
I swear, TSchekler, the sophistication of your posts are high school level. If my competitor ever hires a contractor, I hope you get the bid. Your mastery in describing the situation in Boulder is not exactly high level stuff.
-Fixing argus at events has been a big focus by the AD the last two years. In 2012 it was terrible. 2013 it was better but still awful. 2014 I really saw the AD crack down (all of this is first hand experience w/ AD professionals) on argus and basically said to chill the **** out.
-There hasn't been a vision in the AD for decades and we're seeing it by not seeing construction in the past and standard maintenance. We now have a vision and a fundraising plan, both of which were missing
-I'd say as far as CFB goes, UT and UO have monopoly money
-There hasn't been a vision in the AD for decades and we're seeing it by not seeing construction in the past and standard maintenance. We now have a vision and a fundraising plan, both of which were missing
-I'd say as far as CFB goes, UT and UO have monopoly money
Deleted member 807
Guest
It would be interesting to hear what Phil Knight, Red McCombs and Joe Jamail would have to say about your characterization of the money they spent.
Darian3Hagan
'89 Player of the Year
What in the world are you talking about? McCombs has donated over $100M to UT. Knight has given over $300M to UO. Relative to the rest of college athletics, that is monopoly money.
Really? Is that why the conversation the past few pages have been centered around how many years behind these upgrades are? It seems that further upgrades actually do hinge on who is in control, do they not? Also, this was me simply responding to guys like S2S and Sack, who have continually brought up (and have been doing so for a while) that more work needs to be done, past the CC and IPF.
Donor money, monopoly money, what's the difference as it relates to the fundraising gap between programs like them and CU? You really have to tear down a fairly accurate analogy? My point is still a valid one, whether you think it's simplistic or not. Oregon and UT seemingly have an unlimited budget to make whatever upgrades they'd like, whenever they'd like; CU does not. Is that better for you?
Last edited:
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
I agree with your overall assessment. But right now the AD is a cost center. I think Benson is probably saying "How much do I need to put in to make this make money?" I think he hired an AD he can be very proud of on the results he's made in a very short period of time. He didn't pull the trigger on saying the AD didn't need to repay it's prior loans from the school. That would be a very bold choice and would certainly generate some positive and negative feedback in the opinion sections of the Colorado papers.
In my mind, this is a huge year for MM. He'll want an extension at the end of this season so he isn't recruiting with only one year on his contract. His recruiting has been poor by Pac 12 standards. His management of the team has been great. His coaching has been okay. Ultimately, he wasn't hired by RG. If he lays an egg, this thing doesn't continue towards profitability. If he goes to a bowl game, we'll be worried about keeping him. I think he will come in at 4 or 5 wins, and RG will not extend and it will all hedge on the 2016 season. Until he starts to win, the path to prosperity in the AD is a steep climb.
Right now I think RG is the guy who is untouchable. He came in and put together a fund raising campaign and moved mountains that no one thought possible except a few of us over the top fans. Now he has a great facility, and a great town to sell the next coach on if something crazy goes on this year and we loose to Hawaii and/or CSU, which would put us on a path of 2-3 wins.
Deleted member 807
Guest
Now we are getting somewhere. Monopoly money is fake money. I assure you that the money being spent at OU and UT is only fake money in the sense that it is no longer backed by PM (nod to TBD). Otherwise those dollars at Oregon and UT are real, and come from donors who have more than just a passing interest in their favorite university.
Why is it that the U of O and UT have a better relationship with wealthy athletic minded donors? Why is it that only a small fraction of CU alumni choose to give back to the university?
Over time, CU has had strong funding relationships with the likes of the Coors family, the Charlie Gates family, Phil Anshutz. But you don't hear very much about about big Colorado money lining up with the CU athletic department anymore.
When Bruce Benson is your AD's single biggest donor, I think there is a problem. It's a shame that George Solich couldn't find a way to stomach DiStephano/Bohn. It's a shame the Montforts or Anschutz or Stryker don't have any investing interest in CU Athletics.
Why is it, exactly, that CU athletics hasn't forged partnerships with billionaires like Dish owner Charlie Ergen, John Malone, James Leprino, or Gary Magness? Think about this for a second. Several of Colorado's billionaires earned their fortune with TV broadcasting (Dish, Comcast, TCI) What drives CU's revenue these days? Television revenue. How the hell did the CU Athletic department fail to land a patron where there is a mutual benefit between content and distribution? Horrible!
Last edited by a moderator:
DenverBuff77
Member
I guess the fact that I was a double major in film/environmental studies and I had to take lots of english/science classes but I saw seething hatred from a lot of my professors for Athletics. I was in a philosophy of religion class and a backup kid from the football team(can't remember his name) got called out in front of the whole class for being late one day(granted he always showed up late). The professor made a very thinly veiled reference to the fact that he thought he was late because of football. I even got called out one time for wearing a Man U jersey to class by a tenured well respected professor in ENVS. I made sure to wear that jersey every single time I went to his class just to piss him off. Maybe things have changed since 99-03 though.
I took a nephew on a campus tour of CU to try to convince him to go there, the little snot ended up at OU. Anyway, as we walked through Ketchum, some Prof had the Gary Barnett fired newspaper still taped to inside of his office window for all to see as they walked by. This was 2010.
Found an interesting link to a book chapter from "Sports Marketing".
https://books.google.com/books?id=e...=onepage&q=sports fan education level&f=false
Greater education level generally equates to being a higher level fan. That should support there being passionate fans in Boulder and at CU.
However, passion as a fan seems to dip considerably when someone hits the 55+ age bracket. That might have an impact on the interest among professors and administrators.
For sure, though, there is going to be a significant segment of university professors who don't believe in compromising academic standards for sports and that sports gets in the way of a university's primary mission as an institution of higher learning. In the CU and Boulder culture, my impression is that those folks are especially vocal.
I'd say this: find success in football with the attached benefits to fundraising and applications (for greater selectivity) while avoiding scandal & criminality from the program and we'll see the most negative voices quieted to the point of inconsequence.
https://books.google.com/books?id=e...=onepage&q=sports fan education level&f=false
Greater education level generally equates to being a higher level fan. That should support there being passionate fans in Boulder and at CU.
However, passion as a fan seems to dip considerably when someone hits the 55+ age bracket. That might have an impact on the interest among professors and administrators.
For sure, though, there is going to be a significant segment of university professors who don't believe in compromising academic standards for sports and that sports gets in the way of a university's primary mission as an institution of higher learning. In the CU and Boulder culture, my impression is that those folks are especially vocal.
I'd say this: find success in football with the attached benefits to fundraising and applications (for greater selectivity) while avoiding scandal & criminality from the program and we'll see the most negative voices quieted to the point of inconsequence.
dply
Doble hoja
I think money is a big factor too. When you look at those maps that show the highest paid state employee it is almost always the football coach at the best school in the state. Professors think that if that money isn't going to the coaches then they can have a slice of that pie. It doesn't work like that obviously.
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
Money, envy, egos. Academia breeds arrogance. I would never hire 90% of the professors I had. The noteworthy exceptions were those who were adjuncts who enjoyed teaching enough that they found time to fit in a class.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/colorado/2014.html
The Buffs had the 7th toughest schedule of 128 D1 teams last season. We may see some improvement in the record as a result of what is almost certain to be a little weaker schedule.
The Buffs had the 7th toughest schedule of 128 D1 teams last season. We may see some improvement in the record as a result of what is almost certain to be a little weaker schedule.
Bufffan68
Club Member
Difficult weakening the schedule when we're in the toughest division in all college football (PAC12 South).
True. But I think there's a little bit of falloff at the top of the conference relative to last year.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
I HOPE there's a little bit of falloff at the top of the conference this year. Unfortunately I think the home games are tougher than last year (in conference). But hopefully having a much better DC, and most of the players having another year of practice and growth behind them, better decisions will be made (looking at you Sefo) and a few more defensive stops, combining to give up 7 plus more points for or 7 points against less. Or if things get good, both. I personally saw much better play last year than the year before, which was a step up form JE's last year by a mile. Record didn't show that (and I understand that with all five of our south mates in the top 25 and a couple of the north ones to boot), but.... I did see progress in play, if not record. I hope that there will be more progress in play, and this year it will translate to a better record too.
I hope for 7 and a bowl game, and think that we really need to get to at least 6. We need 2 conference wins minimum to show progress to potential Buffs. 3 along with a 4-0 non-con and a bowl game that is competitive, or even a win, and we are in a much better position for selling the vision to recruits.