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!

Rumors of Certain Regents Potentially Voting Against MT Contract

BorrachoBuff said:
The adage "A rising tide lifts all boats" is perfect. Moser even used the phrase on the broadcast.
Click to expand...
And he is completely right.

Buffnik said:
But the NUMBER would be a problem. It's already a problem. They're already accepting over 75% of the high school kids who apply to CU.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with you or anybody on this board. A successful football program improves the situation. It improves the applicant pool, it improves the fund raising arm, it improves the campus culture.
 
BorrachoBuff said:
Without football, CU would become Northern Arizona University. CU is a brand to out of state kids, and I think the brand is greatly diminished if football were to dissolve. A big time Football program gives a sense of legitimacy to a University, and that's what upper class (out of state) parents look for. Plus, football is a way to keep alumni of all ages connected to their Alma Mater. Without Football, I think Alumni involvement and donations would be hit HARD. Of course, I have no evidence for any of this, just my unjustified opinion.
Click to expand...
It was the deciding factor for me (I was between CU and Santa Barbara).
 
I think this would be a good time for Benson and other parts of the admin to release a statement. You can't let someone spew incorrect statements over and over. It doesn't have to be hostile but just reminding those involved in CU that
1) The Pac-12 and CU is on the cutting edge in terms of injury prevention and maintenance
2) Public money only accounts for 6% of the budget for CU as a whole
3) CU gives very little money to the AD
4) The AD provides the school with millions of dollars each year in tuition, which is out of state for all athletes despite quite a few being from Colorado
5) Mel Tucker's contract is a mid level contract in P5 football
6) Athletics is essential to fund raising at the university, not just for athletics but for all departments and does a great job connecting alums
7) Athletics absolutely drives applicants and that is one of the biggest issues facing CU right now, although it has gotten better over the last couple of years
8) This university wants to be the best at everything it does
 
Posted this over on the 247 board as well. We can bitch all we want, but Kroll is getting exactly what he wanted out of this vote. You think any Regent that voted yes is getting interviewed on a local radio station? He is getting free air time to build name recognition for his future political "career", without risking the anger / accountability of voting this way if the contract had actually been defeated. Its a political stunt by a political hack who is changing his story about why he voted that way because he probably read the CU boards and saw all of the mockery over how idiotic it sounded. The guy has political aspirations and has less than 250 twitter followers and got elected to a statewide office with a $16k budget. This is all about "any press is good press" for him. The only consolation is that the guy does seem to be a complete idiot so he would hopefully get wiped out by a half-way competent opponent in any race where the voters have more understanding of the candidates beyond whether they have an R or D after their name on the ballot.

I'd be interested to see how much correspondence the regents get from their public constituents that is NOT related to their responsibilities with regard to approval / supervision of the athletic department.
 
SuperD said:
Posted this over on the 247 board as well. We can bitch all we want, but Kroll is getting exactly what he wanted out of this vote. You think any Regent that voted yes is getting interviewed on a local radio station? He is getting free air time to build name recognition for his future political "career", without risking the anger / accountability of voting this way if the contract had actually been defeated. Its a political stunt by a political hack who is changing his story about why he voted that way because he probably read the CU boards and saw all of the mockery over how idiotic it sounded. The guy has political aspirations and has less than 250 twitter followers and got elected to a statewide office with a $16k budget. This is all about "any press is good press" for him. The only consolation is that the guy does seem to be a complete idiot so he would hopefully get wiped out by a half-way competent opponent in any race where the voters have more understanding of the candidates beyond whether they have an R or D after their name on the ballot.

I'd be interested to see how much correspondence the regents get from their public constituents that is NOT related to their responsibilities with regard to approval / supervision of the athletic department.
Click to expand...
I think that he's a child and he's going on the radio because he's pouting after the adults told him he was wrong. He's gonna show them! He's got it all figured out and demands they respect his opinions.

"Treat me like a big boy!"
Signed,
Jack Kroll
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
The follow up was a bit sobering though. Vic asked, if CU didn't have a football program, would their enrollment numbers drop? Probably not. However, what he is missing, and what Moser tried to point out, is that the QUALITY of the applicant pool would drop if CU dropped football. Vic was right though, the location of CU, the quality of the education, the culture of Boulder, the access to the outdoors, and the access to the amenities of a city like Denver would still drive enrollment numbers at CU. The university ultimately would be fine.
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of fine. Lower national visibility. Less exposure to people outside of CO. Harder to connect with out of state alums. My guess is that their fundraising (for the school, not the AD) would suffer quite a bit.
 
I'll just post my obligatory "it sucks to be a CU fan" post.

Some of you know that I come from a family that is very pro-OU. It would be so easy to just go back to the Sooners full time despite CU's slump in football since the 2005 season at the earliest but yet this is my state and I just can't quite kick my CU habit. Maybe it has something to do with my mother going to graduate school at then West Texas State University (now West Texas A&M University) and their mascot happens to be a buffalo plus they have their live mascot named Dolly. Then I move to Colorado and there's the Buffaloes. I wanted to attend CU myself but I didn't have the grades and I couldn't prove that I was a serious student at the time and I went to Gallaudet University in Washington DC and the nick name is bison. Gallaudet isn't the only school in DC to have the Bison nick name as Howard, at least a few miles north or northwest of Gallaudet) has that nick name too.

How could I not be destined to not be a Buffs/Bison fan?

Football is what attracted me to CU. Doesn't make sense at all for CU to drop the sport.
 
dio said:
I didn't hear the interview but heard the followup. Sounds like Kroll's basic message was that CU doesn't even need any more applicants, so what's the point.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone who works in admissions and doesn't want any more work on his desk.
 
STOP WITH THE STUPID ASS DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER LIBERALS HATE FOOTBALL. WE HAVE PLENTY OF LIBERALS ON THIS SITE WHO LIVE AND DIE FOR THE SPORT. I MOVED A LOT OF THE ****TY POSTS TO THE POL FORUM. GO THERE TO PISS ON EACH OTHER. FURTHER POSTS HERE DELETED.

AND, **** OFF IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. GET THE **** OUT.
 
dio said:
Exactly. It is enshrined in the state Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Governance structure is not changing. And as Colorado becomes more and more Democratic, Buff fans need to consider the possibility that in the near future the BoR may be comprised of 5 or more fringe Liberals. This has pros and cons, and I perceive the cons to be a negative sentiment towards athletics. The fact is, most far Left states do not prioritize college football at their Flagship universities. I look at Cal-Berkeley, Illinois, Rutgers, UMass, etc. Oregon and Washington are outliers. Conclusion, we need a Phi Knight to save us!
 
manhattanbuf said:
In order for your argument to be true about liberals inherently disliking sports, the majority of the people in this forum would have to be lying about their political affiliation.

Kroll is ignorant and ran unopposed. He never before expressed his desire to disband the football program. In fact, he attends the games. I think there’s a serious chance he won’t be retained when he’s up for reelection because of this stupidity.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget the abstained vote (basically a "no" in disguise).

But I hope you're right, I tend to get a little pissed off when idiots like Kroll and Shoemaker mess with my sports. And as another posted said, it makes our athletics program look bad. If I were a HC prospect, I'd have to think long and hard about coming here. If we're going to try and contend for titles as I'm sure we all want, we have to keep the house clean and in order.
 
Liver said:
STOP WITH THE STUPID ASS DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER LIBERALS HATE FOOTBALL. WE HAVE PLENTY OF LIBERALS ON THIS SITE WHO LIVE AND DIE FOR THE SPORT. I MOVED A LOT OF THE ****TY POSTS TO THE POL FORUM. GO THERE TO PISS ON EACH OTHER. FURTHER POSTS HERE DELETED.

AND, **** OFF IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. GET THE **** OUT.
Click to expand...
Read this post and then stare at Liver’s Johnny Cash pic. It’s perfection.
 
This safety discussion reminds me of a time I was asked to weigh in on a boxing match head injury (which wasn’t really, a guy got his bell rung but finished the fight and everyone was fine afterwards). One of the other “expert witnesses” was a boxing doc, who claimed the fight should have been stopped because “the ringside doctors first and only concern is the safety of the boxers”.

To which I replied, “If that’s really true, every boxing match should be stopped immediately after the first punch lands. Of course it’s not safe”. Is there anyone who honestly believes it is or even can be? According to whose definition? Accepting this logical premise, you then have to decide - do you want the freedom to go skydiving, dirt biking, ATV driving, box, play football, rugby, soccer, baseball, heck...drive a car? Or do you want to be as safe as is truly possible? Or is it just that you want to LOOK like you’re on the right side of the issue, without having to own the inevitable consequences of your stance?

Of COURSE we should try to make sports as “safe” as possible within reason. But don’t act like voting against hiring a goddamn new football coach does that in the slightest. These people never follow through on their so-called convictions, they can’t think beyond their own self-righteousness to actually address problems.

My feeling is they lack the ability to actually do anything about it, and they realize it eventually to their own horror. The reason they lack the ability to do anything about a problem is partly because they don’t understand the problem. And instead of just doing their job by empowering others who DO understand the problem and have a means to perhaps ameliorate it, they make sweeping moves that have no effect on the problem whatsoever, but do cause a lot of negative consequences, all in service of looking like you’re a hero.

If you can’t build a better mousetrap, get the **** out of the way of people who can, and keep your mouth shut with your “Uhhh....I’m taking a stand against the bubonic plague!” pandering bull****.
 
BorrachoBuff said:
Without football, CU would become Northern Arizona University. CU is a brand to out of state kids, and I think the brand is greatly diminished if football were to dissolve. A big time Football program gives a sense of legitimacy to a University, and that's what upper class (out of state) parents look for. Plus, football is a way to keep alumni of all ages connected to their Alma Mater. Without Football, I think Alumni involvement and donations would be hit HARD. Of course, I have no evidence for any of this, just my unjustified opinion.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence out there to support your opinion, it is in fact justified.

I will submit that for the most part the people who run America's major universities are not stupid, they are hired to evaluate the usage of resources and maximize the return on those resources as it relates to the institutions they work for.

If football were a bad deal, if it were a negative or a waste of resources or diverting resources from other areas that would better serve the mission of the universities would it not make sense that we would be seeing at least some schools defecting from participation.

In this argument I would note looking at both private institutions and the highly rated public institutions involved. On the public side we see schools like Cal, UCLA, Michigan, and others that are consistently ranked as being among the very best public institutions in the nation (world?) participating fully.

More telling are the private schools. These schools are not bound by political pressure or the burden of carrying a state identity. In those we see Stanford emphasizing football, Notre Dame, Northwestern, BC. Even a school like Miami which has not had great attendance continues to invest in football. Why? Because they understand the return on investment and the benefit to the school of having a successful program.

Buffnik said:
.

Jack Kroll is an absolute lightweight. He's in over his head. He's not very bright. He's immature. There is no reason to respect him. It would be absolutely hilarious if he wasn't the ****ing Vice Chair of the CU Board of Regents.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he may have a great career in politics based on some of the individuals we currently have in office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top