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!

Prime is Polarizing

hokiehead said:
If a verbal agreement was made, they should honor it. I think I conveyed that in the post you quoted.

If Sanders assumed that the black reporter he started the project with would necessarily finish it, and CBS never made any commitment -- verbal, written, handshake, whatever -- then I don't believe an "agreement" was made (my understanding of agreement is that it requires all parties having the same understanding).

If there was any kind of agreement, I haven't seen it mentioned by anyone other than Snow. That's a key missing piece here.

Is Sanders bitter than an agreement was broken or that a black reporter was replaced with a white reporter? If the latter, then it will be interesting to hear CBS's position on why the change was made. If the former, it will be interesting to hear CBS's take on their understanding of the agreement.
Click to expand...
Why do you need there to be an agreement?

Prime agreed to a project and participated at a certain level due to the person who pitched it and would author it.

The employer of the person he was working with pulled him from the project and assigned it to someone else against the wishes of the employee and Prime.

Prime called "foul" and has chosen not to work with that company again.

Are you saying that it wasn't a foul move by the company and Prime should not have a problem with it because CBS was within its legal rights?
 
Buffnik said:
Why do you need there to be an agreement?
...
Click to expand...
I don't need that and I didn't state or imply I did. come on, Nik, you're better than this strawman bs.
Buffnik said:
....

Prime agreed to a project and participated at a certain level due to the person who pitched it and would author it.

The employer of the person he was working with pulled him from the project and assigned it to someone else against the wishes of the employee and Prime.

Prime called "foul" and has chosen not to work with that company again.

Are you saying that it wasn't a foul move by the company and Prime should not have a problem with it because CBS was within its legal rights?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying either. I'm suspending judgment in absence of information.

I do think it goes a long way towards understanding the situation to understand whether Sanders is shutting out one of the top 10 sports media companies in the US over a broken agreement or over a racial issue.

I do think there's a difference in levels of "trust breaking" over an explicit agreement (be it verbal, written, whatever) or over a misunderstanding that was never agreed to by the other party.

Buffnik said:
....


Are you saying that it wasn't a foul move by the company and Prime should not have a problem with it because CBS was within its legal rights?
Click to expand...
I do think it's an issue worth discussing if he refuses to even answer questions from their credentialed reporters. I've intentionally been silent on both points of whether it's 'foul' or whether Sanders should have a problem over what happened. I don't think CBS's "legal rights" come into play at all and haven't suggested in any way they should. I think there's no issue if Sanders doesn't want to work with CBS on special pieces over this. I do think it's potentially an issue to completely shut out all reporters from one of the largest sports media companies over this.
 
Hokie: You don't have to decide which hill to die on when you die on em all.

Think About It GIF by Identity
 
hokiehead said:
I don't need that and I didn't state or imply I did. come on, Nik, you're better than this strawman bs.

I'm not saying either. I'm suspending judgment in absence of information.

I do think it goes a long way towards understanding the situation to understand whether Sanders is shutting out one of the top 10 sports media companies in the US over a broken agreement or over a racial issue.

I do think there's a difference in levels of "trust breaking" over an explicit agreement (be it verbal, written, whatever) or over a misunderstanding that was never agreed to by the other party.


I do think it's an issue worth discussing if he refuses to even answer questions from their credentialed reporters. I've intentionally been silent on both points of whether it's 'foul' or whether Sanders should have a problem over what happened. I don't think CBS's "legal rights" come into play at all and haven't suggested in any way they should. I think there's no issue if Sanders doesn't want to work with CBS on special pieces over this. I do think it's potentially an issue to completely shut out all reporters from one of the largest sports media companies over this.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that if the reports leaking out are accurate, Prime was a victim of a "bait & switch" business practice which harmed the career of someone he was trying to help by engaging with that business. I respect that he didn't just take it. I do question whether the local affiliate should have been included in his reaction.
 
SewallBeach said:
Respectfully, I don’t get why the distinction matters. Primes frustration and reaction would be justified in either scenario.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I'm not sure I agree.

If two parties enter into a joint project and there's no agreement about limitations of resource changes, then a public feud may very well not be justified when one party does so. I do think there's always an implied condition that both sides will adequately staff the project, both in terms of headcount and performance quality, but nobody seems to be suggesting that didn't happen.

if I hire a company to paint to my house because I really like the salesperson, I'm not justified in giving them a one star review if someone different than the salesman shows up to do the actual painting. That situation changes completely if we have an agreement on who will be doing the work.
 
Buffnik said:
What I'm saying is that if the reports leaking out are accurate, Prime was a victim of a "bait & switch" business practice which harmed the career of someone he was trying to help by engaging with that business. I respect that he didn't just take it. I do question whether the local affiliate should have been included in his reaction.
Click to expand...
that I can get on board with
 
hokiehead said:
Respectfully, I'm not sure I agree.

If two parties enter into a joint project and there's no agreement about limitations of resource changes, then a public feud may very well not be justified when one party does so. I do think there's always an implied condition that both sides will adequately staff the project, both in terms of headcount and performance quality, but nobody seems to be suggesting that didn't happen.

if I hire a company to paint to my house because I really like the salesperson, I'm not justified in giving them a one star review if someone different than the salesman shows up to do the actual painting. That situation changes completely if we have an agreement on who will be doing the work.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep assuming different facts?
 
hokiehead said:
Respectfully, I'm not sure I agree.

If two parties enter into a joint project and there's no agreement about limitations of resource changes, then a public feud may very well not be justified when one party does so. I do think there's always an implied condition that both sides will adequately staff the project, both in terms of headcount and performance quality, but nobody seems to be suggesting that didn't happen.

if I hire a company to paint to my house because I really like the salesperson, I'm not justified in giving them a one star review if someone different than the salesman shows up to do the actual painting. That situation changes completely if we have an agreement on who will be doing the work.
Click to expand...
I think the analogy is more if you hired the job with the understanding that a certain painter would be completing the project, who you had a preexisting understanding of their work and established trust with, and then half way through the job they are replaced with someone who may or may not be a complete unknown, or you may or may not believe has the same skillset or dedication to the project.


Holy run on sentence by me.
 
Darth Snow said:
Look at how you changed the analogy
Click to expand...
I reread my last three posts. I'm not seeing any assumptions other assuming that what's reported in the linked article is accurate.

I'm trying to assume otherwise, but it's starting to feel like you're being disingenuous.

@Darth Snow , I also note you're the one who asserted there was an agreement and you've yet to back that claim up.
 
SewallBeach said:
I think the analogy is more if you hired the job with the understanding that a certain painter would be completing the project, who you had a preexisting understanding of their work and established trust with, and then half way through the job they are replaced with someone who may or may not be a complete unknown, or you may or may not believe has the same skillset or dedication to the project.


Holy run on sentence by me.
Click to expand...
ok, I'll accept your different analogy.

if no agreement was in place, and I walked away from the project at the time of the resource change, would a one-star review be justified?
 
hokiehead said:
I reread my last three posts. I'm not seeing any assumptions other assuming that what's reported in the linked article is accurate.

I'm trying to assume otherwise, but it's starting to feel like you're being disingenuous.
Click to expand...
You are so close. I see where you are doing it. Why can't you? feel free to assume it's all of us and not you.
 
hokiehead said:
just put me on ignore, dude
Click to expand...
No. I truly enjoy 99% of your input and insight. You're a valuable poster on this board.

I guess I've realized that most of the posters on this board range the spectrum of moron, to mouth breathers, to arrogant ****s, to lawyers (sorry for the redundancy), to fanatics, to stubborn dicks, and the occasionally brilliant and insightful. I'm not going to always agree with a lot of the **** on here, politically, sports, or otherwise. So I choose to sometimes disagree, but realize after an initial exchange of disagreement, I'm not going to change people's minds on a subject and move on. I don't have to live, work, or bang anyone on here so it's not worth the heartburn. And God knows that the people that are still on this board after a quarter century of dog **** football and general ineptitude are likely resilient enough to stand their ground on their opinion lol.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, most on this board love you Hokie. Enjoy this place for what it is and don't let it frustrate you.
 
hokiehead said:
ok, I'll accept your different analogy.

if no agreement was in place, and I walked away from the project at the time of the resource change, would a one-star review be justified?
Click to expand...
I think refusing to work with that company again would be justified. I would assume Prime has a reason for handling it the way he did, possibly to shine light on the perceived injustice.
 
Darth Snow said:
You are so close. I see where you are doing it. Why can't you? feel free to assume it's all of us and not you.
Click to expand...
alright, let's assume I'm just blind to my own ignorance and I'm genuinely trying to learn why it's me. Mr. Snow, please help me out by pointing out two or three different factual assumptions I've made.
 
Big Iron Buff said:
....I'm not going to change people's minds on a subject and move on. I...
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to change anyone else's mind! Rather, I've stated repeatedly on this topic that I'm trying to gain understanding.

any frustration I have on this topic is with my own ignorance.
 
Big Iron Buff said:
No. I truly enjoy 99% of your input and insight. You're a valuable poster on this board.

I guess I've realized that most of the posters on this board range the spectrum of moron, to mouth breathers, to arrogant ****s, to lawyers (sorry for the redundancy), to fanatics, to stubborn dicks, and the occasionally brilliant and insightful. I'm not going to always agree with a lot of the **** on here, politically, sports, or otherwise. So I choose to sometimes disagree, but realize after an initial exchange of disagreement, I'm not going to change people's minds on a subject and move on. I don't have to live, work, or bang anyone on here so it's not worth the heartburn. And God knows that the people that are still on this board after a quarter century of dog **** football and general ineptitude are likely resilient enough to stand their ground on their opinion lol.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, most on this board love you Hokie. Enjoy this place for what it is and don't let it frustrate you.
Click to expand...

Mods, I demand top know how BIB became a club member without banging anyone.
 
Likely a repeat, but a month old YouTube 'mini-movie' of CP's career. 50 minutes. Unbelievably fast and athletic.

He was talking w/ reporters after the Denver scrimmage and pointed out, "... we handicapped the offense some...". Then he apologized for using the term 'handicapped'. He's more sensitive due to his own health issues, but I was impressed by his awareness and caring attitude. Okay.

click the 'watch on Youtube'

 
Jens1893 said:
NFL is discussing opening itself up to private equity also.

It'll happen especially when you consider that the general US mindset seems to be: Money is good.

The Saudis could buy all US sports leagues if they wanted.
Click to expand...

I have read that such investments would be capped at 10% of the NFL team's value but I don't think that has been approved by the owners yet.

It's inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top