I've actually long assumed that BB2 is Phil Distepheno.
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!
What in the Holy Hell does Ceal Barry think she's doing
- Thread starter buff4bcs1985
- Start date
I've actually long assumed that BB2 is Phil Distepheno.
No way. BB2 is actually willing to stick his neck out with controversial opinions. I might disagree with him 90% of the time and he may stubbornly hold onto his opinions even when faced with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, but just based on the fact that he has a spine I have more respect for him than I do for Phil DiStefano.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Actually public companies announce this kind of thing all the time - layoffs, organizational changes, suspending bonuses, etc. It's not uncommon. The difference is public companies are required to be somewhat open about their business practices to keep shareholders informed about the company, whereas CU loves to run to the media to report it's own bad news.
But if you're going to do this, making it optional is completely boneheaded. We've now announced to the world that we're broke in the midst of a search for a new AD, great timing. On top of that, these optional cuts were put in place by essentially a lame duck so I doubt we'll see significant cuts - the result is we shoot ourselves in the foot by making an announcement that makes us look terrible to prospective AD candidates, gives the media fuel for the fire when it comes to painting CU athletics as the poor kid in the Pac 12, and in all likelihood won't actually save much money. Lose/lose.
Last edited:
And when they do it, they accompany the announcement with a plan for growth. At CU, the cuts are the plan.
The back half of your post was more what I was referencing the boneheaded optional nature of it, of who announced it, and how its carried out. If a company does it a well thought out clear plan that actually saves money and hits targets is laid out.
barry is no friend of big time sports. this is why i have been so direct in my criticism of her as a candidate for ad. she's completely out of touch, imho. i think she believes there should be some kind of equivalency between revenue generating sports and the rest. and, she lives in a bubble of illusion created by a culture of academic aloofness and politically correct group think. so, we shouldn't be surprised when she fumbles something as simple as a budget cut. remember that she was THE precipitating factor that got CU tagged with a "lack of institutional control" for a ****ing training table violation. she completely misplayed that. just like this.
she cannot be trusted to make a real world, big budget athletic department run.
she cannot be trusted to make a real world, big budget athletic department run.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Totally. Companies do this as part of a strategy for growth (as Nik mentioned). I'm so glad Ceal took herself out of the running for AD, she's a disaster. Can someone actually get fired as an interim AD? At this point I'd even prefer bringing Mac or Barnett back to serve as interim over this dope.
Just so we're on the same page about Ceal:
She is that person who a company is forced to hire after a scandal involving sexual harassment, given a VP title, told to be a watchdog in the organization, given a voice with the media, and is forced into every meeting & hiring process decision to ensure that managers are being fair, equitable and always playing by the rules so as to avoid any scandal ever occurring again.
Great CEOs don't allow someone like that into their organization. Good CEOs balance the PR advantage of bringing someone like that in while minimizing the person's power/role. Bungling ****stick political animal CEOs like Phil DiStefano welcome a person like that with open arms, give that person undue power and influence, and then bask in the glow of being a crusader for diversity and integrity while the organization crumbles around him.
She is that person who a company is forced to hire after a scandal involving sexual harassment, given a VP title, told to be a watchdog in the organization, given a voice with the media, and is forced into every meeting & hiring process decision to ensure that managers are being fair, equitable and always playing by the rules so as to avoid any scandal ever occurring again.
Great CEOs don't allow someone like that into their organization. Good CEOs balance the PR advantage of bringing someone like that in while minimizing the person's power/role. Bungling ****stick political animal CEOs like Phil DiStefano welcome a person like that with open arms, give that person undue power and influence, and then bask in the glow of being a crusader for diversity and integrity while the organization crumbles around him.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Cut the cheerleading squads, then buy 3 dozen CU bikinis, 9 bottles of vodka, and 3 cases of Red Bull. Send 12 bikinis, 3 vodka bottles, and a case of Red Bull each to 3 separate sororities. Invite them to compete to see who is CU's favorite sorority by "performing" at football games. At each game the students cheer for the best bikini-clad sorority dance team and the loser each week has to forfeit their bikinis and booze to another sorority the following week. The champion is announced at halftime of the Utah game.
This would save money and improve the fan experience at Folsom. Win/win.
This would save money and improve the fan experience at Folsom. Win/win.
dply
Doble hoja
They'd burn her alive down there.
:lol:
"Little lady, that just ain't the way things are done in these parts. Keep your nose out of where it don't belong or you're not gonna last long."
Let's put this in perspective. When Mike needed to close an $8 million deficit, he announced this...
http://www.coloradotennis.com/cta/w...&Sec=2006/jul/blast&Page=Buffaloed in Boulder
Cuts happen when things are this badly mismanaged.
CityBuffPete
Member
Looks like HCMM will be providing his own water bottles.
Actually, as bad as it sucked for the tennis guys...it could be argued that that the Tennis cut is a smarter decision from a business perspective. The business equivalent is cutting an underperforming and non-profitable division in an industry where you are not competing effectively in order to consolidate resources towards other more profitable units with better potential for growth, rather than telling everybody to cut 10% across the board regardless of their prospects. Men's basketball is on the verge of being a national player, and they've been able to significantly grow the revenue there with ticket hikes this year. Why cut costs there to jeopardize that opportunity? Plus we already had Title IX compliance issues so it could be argued that action helped bring us more in line. If there really are inefficiencies in the football program then that would be one thing, but we know the program is desperately trying to keep their head above water in the midst of an arms race, and you'll be cutting a lot more than 10% from everyone else if they can't get things turned around.
It may have been a better option but they can't do it twice. What would you propose they cut this time?
Edit - Under performing?? As I recall the program made it to the second round of the NCAA championships and was nationally ranked the month before it was cut.
How about instead of this public BS, Ceal does a quick eval on all departments sets some new internal policies and strives to cut some fat, including GASP firing some extraneous people, pushing a couple of early retirments, and putting in-place a hiring freeze? All of this could and should be done behind closed doors, and would be more effective and less of a black eye than what was just done.
JR, not going to debate this with you but I worked O&G for 4 years, and as far as I know the so called "propitiatory chemicals" have yet to be made public.
Exactly. And when the tough decisions are made, go forward and say, "we've made the following changes."
The first step is to tell departments to cut 10%; it's done behind closed doors. Then you wait for them to push back. And then you push harder. And then you get some good ideas, make some decisions and move ahead.
Seriously. Amateur hour.
How do you know that she didn't take that first step behind closed doors? I would assume that she had meetings with the departments before this story came out but maybe she didn't.
The fact that the AD is running in the red is going to be out in the press and there really isn't a way around that. The AD has to have some response even if they are going to say that they won't do anything about it. Was this the best plan? Was it handled correctly? I'm not sure, but it doesn't make sense to pretend that it wouldn't happen publicly.
+1 Ceal should be kept as far away from any real decision making authority as possible. Also, keep her away from the media.
Some notes:
- All the steps should be done behind closed doors, you are reading that post incorrectly.
- While there is no way to keep the numbers out of the paper perhaps giving an interview about it and detailing your flawed plan to cut costs, is how would you say, stupid?
My point is that some parts of the process shouldn't be for public consumption. Instead, she should have completed the process and then announced the tangible results.
I'm certain she went to the department heads/coaches before going to the Post. That wasn't my point.
Edit:
Consider the difference.
1. We're experiencing budget difficulties and I've called up all departments to cut 10% of their costs.
2. We've evaluated our processes and have made the following changes (identify specific changes) to leverage a variety of efficiencies.
Last edited:
What is truly ironic, and somewhat sad, is that these academics are in charge of finding someone to run the AD "like a business". Honestly, actions like this convince me the PTB couldn't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight, much less know what to look for when considering qualities an executive might have that would lend themselves to being successful in business. I seriously doubt Dr. Phil or Ceal could successfully run a lemonade stand.