Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Participation trophies up next for CU

Yes, it is a recruiting tool. And in a state like Florida, the stakes are high. I'm not sure I'd give one out for a CO championship with CU, CSU and AFA.

If it was related to a defined team goal and the coaches made the decision, I am good with the decision.

I hope the bar keeps getting set higher for achievement and reward.
 
How about nice ceramic division championship mugs, instead?
 
I like the idea of an objective standard for rings and trophies.

Also, I think a division championship meets that standard.

Finally, I feel as though Gen X did more to **** up Millennials than Baby Boomers did.

Baby Boomers ****ed up Gen X...and everything else.
 
Uncle Ken said:
I like the idea of an objective standard for rings and trophies.

Also, I think a division championship meets that standard.

Finally, I feel as though Gen X did more to **** up Millennials than Baby Boomers did.

Baby Boomers ****ed up Gen X...and everything else.
Click to expand...
There is an objective standard.

If you win a championship, you get a ring.

Championships that are goals for the team: Division Championship, Bowl Game Championship (minor up to a New Year's Six), Pac-12 Championship, NCAA Championship.

Win any of these, it earns a ring.

Goal #1 is to earn a ring that season.

Beyond that, the goal is to earn a ring with the biggest accolades on it.

I don't understand why anyone has an issue with a Division Championship ring. In the hierarchy of ring-worthy achievements, I consider it above a ring for winning any Pac-12 bowl game (Alamo, Holiday, Foster Farms, Sun, Las Vegas, Cactus) other than the Rose Bowl.
 
I have zero issue with it myself, don't understand why anyone would? These guys aren't gonna lessen their goals because of a ring, they'll try to take another step.
 
Buffnik said:
There is an objective standard.

If you win a championship, you get a ring.

Championships that are goals for the team: Division Championship, Bowl Game Championship (minor up to a New Year's Six), Pac-12 Championship, NCAA Championship.

Win any of these, it earns a ring.

Goal #1 is to earn a ring that season.

Beyond that, the goal is to earn a ring with the biggest accolades on it.

I don't understand why anyone has an issue with a Division Championship ring. In the hierarchy of ring-worthy achievements, I consider it above a ring for winning any Pac-12 bowl game (Alamo, Holiday, Foster Farms, Sun, Las Vegas, Cactus) other than the Rose Bowl.
Click to expand...
So we are in agreement.
 
Buffnik said:
There is an objective standard.

If you win a championship, you get a ring.

Championships that are goals for the team: Division Championship, Bowl Game Championship (minor up to a New Year's Six), Pac-12 Championship, NCAA Championship.

Win any of these, it earns a ring.

Goal #1 is to earn a ring that season.

Beyond that, the goal is to earn a ring with the biggest accolades on it.

I don't understand why anyone has an issue with a Division Championship ring. In the hierarchy of ring-worthy achievements, I consider it above a ring for winning any Pac-12 bowl game (Alamo, Holiday, Foster Farms, Sun, Las Vegas, Cactus) other than the Rose Bowl.
Click to expand...

Especially when it is an objective standard that you have not reached in recent years. Winning the division championship is a clear step forward towards your ultimate goal(s). I have seen plenty of private businesses recognize and reward employees for achieving intermediate steps on the way to an ultimate corporate goal.

Appropriately recognizing success can be an effective tool for encouraging future greater successes. That is what this division championship ring is.
 
MtnBuff said:
Especially when it is an objective standard that you have not reached in recent years. Winning the division championship is a clear step forward towards your ultimate goal(s). I have seen plenty of private businesses recognize and reward employees for achieving intermediate steps on the way to an ultimate corporate goal.

Appropriately recognizing success can be an effective tool for encouraging future greater successes. That is what this division championship ring is.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't add the caveat. If they win a national title in 2018 and follow it up in 2019 with a Division title but no P12C title or bowl title, I'd still be 100% in support of the 2019 having earned rings.
 
Buffnik said:
I wouldn't add the caveat. If they win a national title in 2018 and follow it up in 2019 with a Division title but no P12C title or bowl title, I'd still be 100% in support of the 2019 having earned rings.
Click to expand...

And I wouldn't argue with that. I do think though that for a team that has seen the depths that some on this years team experienced winning the division was much more significant than it would be for a team that had earlier reached greater heights. Still don't have a problem though with recognizing quantifiable achievement. There are 5 other schools in the division who didn't earn that recognition, I know that most wish they had.
 
MtnBuff said:
Especially when it is an objective standard that you have not reached in recent years. Winning the division championship is a clear step forward towards your ultimate goal(s). I have seen plenty of private businesses recognize and reward employees for achieving intermediate steps on the way to an ultimate corporate goal.

Appropriately recognizing success can be an effective tool for encouraging future greater successes. That is what this division championship ring is.
Click to expand...

Buffnik said:
I wouldn't add the caveat. If they win a national title in 2018 and follow it up in 2019 with a Division title but no P12C title or bowl title, I'd still be 100% in support of the 2019 having earned rings.
Click to expand...

If it is a team goal that is agreed beforehand, I agree. Personally I think that could very well be rewarding a step back. Depends on team goals.
 
hawg1 said:
If it is a team goal that is agreed beforehand, I agree. Personally I think that could very well be rewarding a step back. Depends on team goals.
Click to expand...

The context of the accomplishment could be very different. What about for example a team that wins the Rose Bowl or gets into the playoffs but loses 17 starters to graduation and/or the draft. The press picks them to barely go .500 and instead they go 10-2 and win the division. I would have no problem rewarding that accomplishment even if it were a major step down from the year before.
 
If that's the goal, yes, give rings.

Good point.

Likewise, if you are a clear conference favorite and get beat in CCG, not sure P12S rings are in order.

I'll repeat my three points.

1. Not based on history.
2. Goal directed
3. Decided by coaches.
 
hawg1 said:
If that's the goal, yes, give rings.

Good point.

Likewise, if you are a clear conference favorite and get beat in CCG, not sure P12S rings are in order.

I'll repeat my three points.

1. Not based on history.
2. Goal directed
3. Decided by coaches.
Click to expand...
Here's where I disagree. I don't believe it is a good policy to change the standard of what's ring worthy on a year-to-year basis. There is an objective standard. You win a championship (division, bowl, conference, NCAA), you earned a ring. The bigger the championship, the bigger and more meaningful the ring. It's not complicated.
 
Buffnik said:
Here's where I disagree. I don't believe it is a good policy to change the standard of what's ring worthy on a year-to-year basis. There is an objective standard. You win a championship (division, bowl, conference, NCAA), you earned a ring. The bigger the championship, the bigger and more meaningful the ring. It's not complicated.
Click to expand...

Without sharing Big Jim's acridity, I agree with his stance that rings for divisions is soft. However, you're right...it is part of the historic/objective standard. GB's teams got division rings. If I were dictator and ruler of all, division champs wouldn't get rings, but whatever...proud of last year's team so let them get their deserved prize.

Bowls get rings though??? I did not know that.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top