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

Creebuzz said:
I’m hoping that Shoemaker decides to enjoy her 70s playing with the grandkids and doesn’t run for re-election in 2021.
Click to expand...
Anyone in district 1 or 2 want to run?

coloradostatemapdistricts.gif
 
Buffnik said:
Someone might want to explain to Kroll that before RG the athletic department was losing money and taking loans from the university's general fund in order to cover expenses. If CU won't pay RG market value, someone else will and then if we go cheap we'll end up with an underperforming financial albatross of an athletic department again. That is exactly where Kroll and Shoemaker's "vision" leads.

Shoemaker because she'd simply be happier if CU dropped football and followed the blueprint of The University of Chicago (founding Big Ten member that has a final four & a Heisman winner in its history but decided to de-emphasize athletics and become a D3 school). Kroll because he doesn't understand basic economics of how revenue is generated and wealth is created while also being easily convinced that Shoemaker's vision would be allsome.
Click to expand...

I think their vision leads directly toward their goal; no athletic department at all.
 
Creebuzz said:
I’m hoping that Shoemaker decides to enjoy her 70s playing with the grandkids and doesn’t run for re-election in 2021.
Click to expand...
We also need to get Kroll primaried out.

Problem for both is that they are in very partisan districts. Major problem for CU that our BoR is publicly elected based on districts rather than all of them being elected At-Large in statewide votes. We've got a purple state, but in certain districts you could get a ham sandwich elected if it had (D) or (R) after its name. So it's impossible to defeat them if we have an idot who makes it to the election ballot.

Ideally I'd want to have a single appointee or at-large elected politician representing the state's/ public's interest in the governance of CU -- which the public funds a very small part of and gets a huge ROI on with direct employment, tuition advantages, community services & cultural events, and business startups. But if we can't get that then I'd at least want the entire BoR elected through at-large elections.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Anyone in district 1 or 2 want to run?

coloradostatemapdistricts.gif
Click to expand...

Districts 2 (Boulder/Shoemaker) and 7 (Lakewood-Arvada etc / Irene Griego) are your targets for 2021. And of course hold John Carson from Highlands Ranch in District 6. Lose the Carson support and things look really bleak.
 
The problem with changing how the state elects BOR is that it requires a Constitutional Amendment. Getting the legislature, and the general populace to agree to appointing regents is long shot. This next election cycle will be very important for the future of CU Athletics in general and football in particular.
 
buffbuffpass said:
The problem with changing how the state elects BOR is that it requires a Constitutional Amendment. Getting the legislature, and the general populace to agree to appointing regents is long shot. This next election cycle will be very important for the future of CU Athletics in general and football in particular.
Click to expand...

The legislature could dilute the BoR by adding appointed seats - that doesn't require an amendment. It would be very messy and there is zero political will to do it, but it is one option.
 
Buffnik said:
We also need to get Kroll primaried out.

Problem for both is that they are in very partisan districts. Major problem for CU that our BoR is publicly elected based on districts rather than all of them being elected At-Large in statewide votes. We've got a purple state, but in certain districts you could get a ham sandwich elected if it had (D) or (R) after its name. So it's impossible to defeat them if we have an idot who makes it to the election ballot.

Ideally I'd want to have a single appointee or at-large elected politician representing the state's/ public's interest in the governance of CU -- which the public funds a very small part of and gets a huge ROI on with direct employment, tuition advantages, community services & cultural events, and business startups. But if we can't get that then I'd at least want the entire BoR elected through at-large elections.
Click to expand...

We have Kroll until 2023 unfortunately so haven’t focused on him. I think you’ll see him move on to run for a higher elected office. Regent seems like a stepping stone for him, at least in his eyes.
 
Buffnik said:
Someone might want to explain to Kroll that before RG the athletic department was losing money and taking loans from the university's general fund in order to cover expenses. If CU won't pay RG market value, someone else will and then if we go cheap we'll end up with an underperforming financial albatross of an athletic department again. That is exactly where Kroll and Shoemaker's "vision" leads.

Shoemaker because she'd simply be happier if CU dropped football and followed the blueprint of The University of Chicago (founding Big Ten member that has a final four & a Heisman winner in its history but decided to de-emphasize athletics and become a D3 school). Kroll because he doesn't understand basic economics of how revenue is generated and wealth is created while also being easily convinced that Shoemaker's vision would be allsome.
Click to expand...
This is exactly my read as well. Unfortunately for shoemaker, CU has nowhere near the academic reputation of university of chicago (and I say that as one of the biggest CU sunshine pumpers around). UofC is in a much different league than CU and they do not need athletics as a marketing mechanism. CU does.

Kroll really has shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how many things work within the University. The fact he was vice chair is nothing short of absolutely embarrassing.
 
Denver_sc said:
This is exactly my read as well. Unfortunately for shoemaker, CU has nowhere near the academic reputation of university of chicago (and I say that as one of the biggest CU sunshine pumpers around). UofC is in a much different league than CU and they do not need athletics as a marketing mechanism. CU does.

Kroll really has shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how many things work within the University. The fact he was vice chair is nothing short of absolutely embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Kroll has shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how many things work. That's it. That's the more accurate statement.
 
Oh Jesus...we lose RG and we’re ****ed again. He’s the best thing that could have happened to athletic fundraising. Look at the recent donation to fund athletic scholarships and the athletic department, that never happens without RG. Our BOR is ****ing cringeworthy.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Does he? Or is he a destructive demagogue who doesn't care if he breaks things on his way up the political ladder?
Click to expand...
That's possible, but he hasn't really said anything that demonstrates he does understand things, at least pertaining to general economics or as Denver sc said, how things operate within the University.
 
TSchekler said:
That's possible, but he hasn't really said anything that demonstrates he does understand things, at least pertaining to general economics or as Denver sc said, how things operate within the University.
Click to expand...

He is a moron and it is utterly dumbfounding to me that he is allowed to help run a multi-billion dollar organization. I wouldn't hire this guy to run a Wal-Mart.
 
Creebuzz said:
We have Kroll until 2023 unfortunately so haven’t focused on him. I think you’ll see him move on to run for a higher elected office. Regent seems like a stepping stone for him, at least in his eyes.
Click to expand...

Can we recall a CU regent like we can a governor? One thing with Carson-amendments x and y (taking redistricting away from politicians) that got passed in 2018 would probably help him more than anything-the Columbine Valley/South Jefferson County area (pretty Republican area of Denver metro) should probably wind up back in District 6 after the 2020 census.
 
Last edited:
TSchekler said:
Here’s another Kroll item from yesterday. Fair question. It’s a really stupid question but it’s fair to ask I guess
Click to expand...


Yeah I’m sure none of these kids are aware of the risks. This **** bag will look for any reason he can to downplay athletics to fit his agenda.
 
Buffsrock85 said:
Yeah I’m sure none of these kids are aware of the risks. This **** bag will look for any reason he can to downplay athletics to fit his agenda.
Click to expand...
No ****, I'm sure his sorry ass really gives a damn about what the young men think about the risks. The players know what they are getting into, hard not to these days. Maybe punkass Kroll should let people make their own decision instead of trying to live their lives for them. Know your role Country Club.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top