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
Their reasoning is an issue. It makes absolutely no sense other than they have an issue with athletics in general at the University.
I think last time he said the money should be spent on bee research. Improvement!
It would be easy to argue, and probably prove, that if the football team were to disappear tomorrow, that the donations to the general fund would decrease. Something that WOULD impact the ability of CU to research different things. The football program is the single biggest connection with alumni. It brings them back to campus, and it opens up their wallets. A lot of damage would be to done to the financial health of the AD and the university of football disappeared. The fact these regents don't get that, is astounding.
You seem to believe that CU recruits players and coaches in a vacuum.
One where no one else is trying to recruit them, or convince them to stay.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there's another school's coach whispering in their ear "CU doesn't support football, just ask Google - their brand new coach was only two votes away from being denied his contract - now do you really want to take a chance like that with your future career?"
Dead wrong when considering Rick George - I know for a fact he is and has been very unhappy with Kroll and Shoemaker, and now Griego. All Dems, of course. Don't fit the facts to justify idiot behavior by democrats on the BOR.
Also, a new lefty Board member, Lesley Smith, an environmental prof at CU will not be a friend to football. She beat a far more qualified candidate Ken Montera in a state wide race because she has D behind her name.
The best hope is Sue Sharkey guides the 4 Dem idiots to make a good choice on the next President.
Mb2658
Well-Known Member
I
Is he a Georgia Tech fan?
I voted straight D this year -- except for Montera. I think some of our AB members sent in their ballots and went straight D before they realized what was going on in that Regent race.
I've got a buddy I'm going to try to talk into it. No political background, but a non-crackpot D with a strong background in finance and budget management...you know...the actual qualifications you should have for the position.
Kroll is a dumbass, and there is a growing sentiment that the danger of football is a threat to its long-term viability. It's not like our regents as a whole are that far out of line with the general populace. In fact, I would argue that the number of people who think football is dangerous, and definitely the number of dumbasses, is well above 11% in the state.
I would be the first to agree that there are inherent problems with giving power over a university system to a publicly elected board. However, is it really that hard to just say that the Tucker's salary was easily approved? That one board member voted no because of a faulty notion that the football program diverted funds from other university missions? (Easily countered.) And that one voted no because of an overall distaste for the sport of football itself?
I just have a hard time thinking that the "optics" of this are a big problem. Just issue a statement that 75% of the votes were for approval, and be done with it. Sometimes I think the hand-wringing gives the cue to lazy journalists that this is something to talk about.
Finally, does anyone know what other states have transparent voting on the approval of coaches' contracts? Is this really uncommon anywhere else?
I would be the first to agree that there are inherent problems with giving power over a university system to a publicly elected board. However, is it really that hard to just say that the Tucker's salary was easily approved? That one board member voted no because of a faulty notion that the football program diverted funds from other university missions? (Easily countered.) And that one voted no because of an overall distaste for the sport of football itself?
I just have a hard time thinking that the "optics" of this are a big problem. Just issue a statement that 75% of the votes were for approval, and be done with it. Sometimes I think the hand-wringing gives the cue to lazy journalists that this is something to talk about.
Finally, does anyone know what other states have transparent voting on the approval of coaches' contracts? Is this really uncommon anywhere else?
actually, shoemaker's alleged objection was far less irredeemably stupid than kroll's.
football is dangerous. these are students of the university, charged to the university's care. the CUAD makes a lot of money from the participation of these students in a violent sport. while i suspect shoemaker had motives beyond the safety of students, this is an issue that is going to keep coming up. it needs to be dealt with.
kroll's non-sensical vomitus concerning cancer cures and football is far more offensive. are we sure he actually graduated from ucd? i've owned houseplants with higher ability to reason.
football is dangerous. these are students of the university, charged to the university's care. the CUAD makes a lot of money from the participation of these students in a violent sport. while i suspect shoemaker had motives beyond the safety of students, this is an issue that is going to keep coming up. it needs to be dealt with.
kroll's non-sensical vomitus concerning cancer cures and football is far more offensive. are we sure he actually graduated from ucd? i've owned houseplants with higher ability to reason.
Kroll is serving until 2023, the other two are serving until 2021.
You like the D, don't you, you little allbuffer.
The problem I have with her response is that CU is one of the national leaders in concussion research. Also, as part of our giant facilities upgrade, they dedicated space for a state of the art sports medicine facility. They work directly in concert with the research arm at CU-Anschutz. CU IS taking player safety seriously. They ARE taking steps to improve safety as best they can in a violent sport.
Also. The job of the head coach is to coach players, not develop new safety measures for the sport of football.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...among-other-areas-correlated-football-success
Maybe I should email this to Mr. Kroll.
Maybe I should email this to Mr. Kroll.
Yep. It was a complete non-sequitur as a reason not to approve the Mel Tucker contract.
What she's really saying is that she doesn't think there should be football at CU.
I almost can't properly express in words how angry it makes me that a ****ing ignoramus like Jack Kroll has so much power within an institution that I love so much. He's said stupid **** before, but today takes the cake:
Hallelujah. Holy ****; where's the Tylenol?
- The AD is self funded at CU. It literally makes no difference to any research funding whatsoever how much CU pays its HC
- The AD is getting a coach for well below market rate. Peer institutions pay much more for their coaches
- Most of the implied research he's talking about is funded by grants- i.e. NOT CU.
- What CU does pay for, and how, is through tuition charged to students, and CU makes a good deal more on out of state students. There is a lot of anectdotal and empirical evidence that shows a correlation to the performance of a football team with the number of applications for out-of-state students.
Hallelujah. Holy ****; where's the Tylenol?
yes, that is what she is saying-- health and safety have to be addressed. but, there are a lot of smart people raising questions across the country about how to de-risk a violent game. i don't agree with her, but i understand this position.
kroll on the other hand, may god have mercy on his soul, because the man has the mental capacity of a spit cup.
Mods - if possible, can Shoemaker and Kroll’s opposition be sticky’d somewhere so it is easy to reference? Especially for election purposes.
The issue is not that the contract passed with 75% of the vote. It is not that two regents voted the contract down. The issue is that the reasoning for voting the contract down makes no sense. How does not approving HCMTs contract address either issue?
By the way, when I criticized Linda Shoemaker in one my posts on the Regents, I was told she was one of the strongest supporters of athletics. Hmmmm.
By the way, when I criticized Linda Shoemaker in one my posts on the Regents, I was told she was one of the strongest supporters of athletics. Hmmmm.
I'd imagine she separates football from the rest of athletics so she can say that.
If that's true then her position makes even less fiscal sense for the university.
Stephens trying to claim MT contract violates state law
Yup. They make me look centrist.
Speaking of ****ing morons
If he basic point is that football is a dangerous game, then sure, but that has nothing to do with voting yes or no on a football coaches contract. Saying "CU doesn't emphasize safety" is not a fair point and she's an idiot for saying it.
Already addressed. It's a typo, which Howell tweeted a while ago. Contract goes through Dec 31, 2023.