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
- Thread starter Wyo Buff
- Start date
The University of Colorado should be ashamed that there are certified ****ing morons sitting on it's BOR. Some truly unforgivable opinions.
Maybe they should be appointments instead of being elected.
I'll run against him! It sounds like an awesome job to be honest. How does a guy like him get that job? Mods if I run, make sure to remove all offensive posts I have done.
Okay, seriously how hard would it be to find candidates to oppose Kroll and Shoemaker in the next election. I think we may need to establish an Allbuffs PAC. I don't understand how someone as under-qualified as Kroll got on the ticket in the first place.
This is actually an area of concern. If the crackpots actually have a 3 vote bloc then it could be disastrous for the program if someone else with similar views makes it on the board. The shift in State political preferences could really impact the next election since people tend to vote straight political affiliation on the Regent votes since no knows who they are or what they stand for.
This is actually an area of concern. If the crackpots actually have a 3 vote bloc then it could be disastrous for the program if someone else with similar views makes it on the board. The shift in State political preferences could really impact the next election since people tend to vote straight political affiliation on the Regent votes since no knows who they are or what they stand for.
Last edited:
Kroll o ly spent $16k on his campaign. Just primary these ****wads out.
I can't believe how angry this makes me
Done deal.
Hey! Yo! Ziskin!! What do you have to say now?!
Oh. Wait. It was approved? Never mind.
And you just know that turd-face Kroll is going to try to seek higher office. Good luck with that Colorado.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
That's, just like, your opinion, man.
New Vice Chair Jack Kroll thinks that Rick George should donate most of AD revenue to cancer research instead of funding the CU athletic department. (Likes getting free football tix as a perk of his job, though.)
Former Vice Chair Linda Shoemaker doesn't think CU should have football because it isn't a safe sport.
Your Denver and Boulder Regents, folks.
You know how Baylor's Board made horrible decisions because it got controlled by the fringe political right? CU's Board is always at risk of the same thing happening with control swinging to the fringe political left. We need to replace Kroll and Shoemaker with more moderate Dems who take reasonable positions and base their oversight of CU operations in reality.
Former Vice Chair Linda Shoemaker doesn't think CU should have football because it isn't a safe sport.
Your Denver and Boulder Regents, folks.
You know how Baylor's Board made horrible decisions because it got controlled by the fringe political right? CU's Board is always at risk of the same thing happening with control swinging to the fringe political left. We need to replace Kroll and Shoemaker with more moderate Dems who take reasonable positions and base their oversight of CU operations in reality.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Tucker's contract passed with 75% approval when the abstention is factored in. That's a disgrace how? How many legal bodies pass anything with 75% of the vote. You people are children. Acting like you've been harmed in some way because the majority of people gave you what you want instead of everyone.
ok, i might otherwise pull my punches a bit with a regent, but kroll is a ****ing idiot. there is no sugarcoating it. he's literally mentally disabled. we can't cure cancer because an independently funded athletics department operates independently? dude. go back into your mom's basement and take a nap. let the adults talk. if you had any financial background at all, you'd understand funding, funding sources, and the distinction between university funds and athletic department funds. and, you're a regent, allegedly responsible for financial oversight? try not to drool on your meeting notes. maybe a professor at CU can provide you with some remedial education?
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Because you disagree does not make them fringe.
Because they're outside the bell curve of what most people generally agree with in this country does make them fringe.
Optics matter. The optics of not having a unanimous approval from the BOR gives ammo to those that say CU does not care about football. That coaching at CU is a bad job. Granted the CU AD in previous years shoulders much of that blame, but it does not in anyway help to have Regent members grandstanding on something they clearly do not understand. It's a bad look all around.
c3youngman
Well-Known Member
Actually know Kroll when he ran my student group. Good guy, but never understood the value of football and would talk against it in meetings with the tour guide group I was a part of that he advised. I was one of the students that was considered to be on the president search committee but I had mentioned how important Football was. Wish I'd been selected. Having a football supporting president is SO important for fund raising from boosters and pushing the CU brand to a national stage. We do a lot of great research here but in this case you can have a great football team and still do research. You need only look to USC, Michigan, Texas, or Stanford to see the proof of this.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
That narrative exists in your head, on this message board and no where else. No one outside of that will remember or care come Monday. Not recruits, Mel Tucker or ESPN.
Exactly. There are plenty of democratic/liberal people who love football and appreciate the contributions it makes to the university. We have a ton on this board.
This isn’t a liberal/conservative thing. It’s an idiot/not an idiot thing.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
I disagree with your assertion. The majority of the public would agree football is not safe. The majority of the population find the cost of education a major problem.
https://deadspin.com/poll-the-one-thing-all-americans-can-agree-on-is-that-1783976391
https://news.gallup.com/poll/182441/americans-say-higher-education-not-affordable.aspx
Yes they will. The perception is out there. McChesney deals with it constantly. The perception that CU doesn't care about football appears to be a factor in being unable to hire our top choices as assistant coaches. Local radio DJ's like Dmac, Big Al, Dave Logan, Rick Lewis, Vic Lombardi, Marc Moser discussed it during the coaching staff, continue to discuss it as it pertains to filling out the assistant coaching staff, and will continue to talk about it because of the vote today.
The perception is real. It is not just a message board narrative.
I'm convinced it is mostly name recognition. Kroll hasn't done ****. You blast your name out there with a simple message that sticks with people, and you will a decent shot at a regent race.
So the idea that the CU administration doesn't support athletics is only on this board and in my head? Lack of support isn't the reason that the CU job has been looked at as one of the worst in P5 over the past 10-15 years? Lack of institutional support is not the only reason, but it certainly has played a role in attracting top notch coaches and has been used against CU in recruiting athletes.
The cost of the athletic department HAS NO BEARING on the cost of higher education at CU. The CU athletic department does not take funds from the CU general fund. The CU athletic department does not take funds from the state of Colorado.
The majority would not say that a Board of Regents member for a major state university should be opposed to the Athletic Director paying a football coach a salary that is within budget and also within or a bit below the going market rate in D1.
That is why she is fringe. And if you don't get that, I have no idea why you participate on Allbuffs.