Baylor is a private school. I guess you could almost argue that CU is too. But we are not.
It's not just a private school issue. Arguements could be made for public schools who have been able to build successful athletic programs. Oklahoma State & Oregon did it with sugar daddies.
I know. CU doesn't have a Pickens or Knight. Fine
Kansas State did it with grandma Snyder and a greenlight on Jr College players.
Iowa State has an indoor practice facility and a lot of Olympic sports not seen in Boulder. ISU is a member of the AAU. Clearly ISU's leadership is better equipped to deliver facilities (but bassically screwed when it comes to conference allignment.)
Missouri and Arizona are peers of CU. Those two programs have leadership that is ready to spend to win. Both of those schools haven't dragged their feet on facilities enhancements.
Look at Boise ****ing State and Utah. Neither of those schools are private. Both have taken an aggressive stance on athletic success.
I'm not even going to ask CU's leadership to emulate Texas or Ohio State or Alabama or Florida, or Michigan. But it wouldn't break my heart if there was that kind of top tier backing at CU.
In conclusion, DBT. Yes Baylor is a private school with a different set of circumstances. CU does not have the leadership structure of a Baylor or Stanford or Notre Dame or Vanderbilt or Rice or TCU or University of Denver. (Each with varying degrees of emphasis on football).
At the end of day, any school, be they private or public, is capabile of succeeding on the football field. It requires the vision of leadership and the support of the fans. CU's vision is ambiguous to non-commital. And as a result, the CU fans have no clear direction which breeds dispare and resentment.
CU's leaders have been piss poor stewards of Buff football. And that's unacceptable.