Why does Mike Bohn continue to get a free pass...

[96 Buff]

Exactly what restrictions does everyone want to be lifted??

The ones DBT insists are there regardless of the evidence shown him to the contrary.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I'd just like to know what restrictions the University of Colorado has, that people would like to see lifted.

What, exactly, is done / is not done, that people want CU's admin to do / no do?

Seems pretty easy to say "there isn't support" but I don't see much actual evidence of that.

 

[BlackNGold]

I also have to admit that my opinion of Mike Bohn is biased by the utter failures of his predecessors. Tharp was a lawyer, and he acted like a lawyer. Marolt was the anti-Bohn. He was great at putting coaches in place that would win, but miserable at PR and marketing. Crowder, well hell, Crowder was an abject failure as athletic director. No other way to put it. Great football coach, completely incompetent AD.

If we could somehow get a combination of Marolt and Bohn, that would be the optimal person. I don't know if that person exists, though. Plus, you have to remember that Marolt had a lot of support from the admin, particularly when Gee was President. I think he left with Albino because he recognized that support had dried up.

Disagree with a lot of your analysis. Marolt was great at PR and Fund Raising. Marolt took over as CU AD in 1984 right after CU the Fairbanks era, CU had just cut a bunch of sports, had gone through the losing football with Fairbanks and was on NCAA probation in football. Marolt did a fantastic job in rebuilding the CU image and building the important relationships with major donors and sponsors. He was able to add 3 womens sports programs to get CU compliant with Title IX and at the same time getting the Athletic department into the Black. Del Ward was built under his watch and at its completion was one of the top facilities in the Nation. CU also had the highest paid FB coach in the country at the time. Marolt would run circles around Mike Bohn in the PR, Marketing and Fund Raising department. Marolt totally transformed US skiing which demonstrates his athletic administration capability.

Tharp was a lot better most people give him credit for...if you talk to people like Ceal Barry and you will get a different perspective on Dick Tharp. Tharp's biggest issue was that he was a behind the scenes guy...he did not have the ego or the need to be a Front Man - he let Neill Woelk run a smear campaign against him without every responding. Tharp did very well with big donors and sponsorships.

Bohn reminds me of a car salesman, make the sale at any cost. He has been saved financially by a couple of things - the implementation of the mandatory donation for ALL season ticket holder in prime seating. Something that Dick Tharp had proposed be did not get approved by the BOR. Hank Brown taking charge and redoing the AD expenses - the AD was getting nailed for all sorts of expenses that legitimately should of gone against the University. One of the criticism (internally) of Bohn is that he has fallen short in the area of Big Donors and sponsorships.

 

[leftybuff]

Bohn reminds me of a car salesman, make the sale at any cost. .

Good analogy...I have come around to the idea MB has little interest in winning when compared to balancing the budget, looking good,playing the politics and making sure the Chancellor and President are happy. If somehow a few W's happen along the way, well that's great too, but he's not sweating it if they don't.

 

[sackman]

If Marolt was half the PR & marketing guy you're making him out to be, we'd have sold out every game from 1988 to whenever he left and have a waiting list 10,000 names long. He was there during the pinnacle of CU athletics, and yet we didn't add one seat of capacity to the stadium during his tenure here. He did nothing of any value to engender community support. He allowed the success or failure of the teams themselves dictate the level of support at the gate. He did nothing - that I know of - to diversify the revenue streams of the athletic department. I could be wrong on that, but Bohn has been far more visible in this regard than Marolt ever was.

 

[sackman]

Good analogy...I have come around to the idea MB has little interest in winning when compared to balancing the budget, looking good,playing the politics and making sure the Chancellor and President are happy. If somehow a few W's happen along the way, well that's great too, but he's not sweating it if they don't.

I actually agree with this. I don't think Bohn really cares about winning and losing. That's secondary in his mind. I wish he'd change that focus a little. I'm tired of being terrible at football. Really, really tired.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

Good analogy...I have come around to the idea MB has little interest in winning when compared to balancing the budget, looking good,playing the politics and making sure the Chancellor and President are happy. If somehow a few W's happen along the way, well that's great too, but he's not sweating it if they don't.

he had to balance the budget because of a cash flow problem... lets see what happens now that the cash is flowing back in... give him 2-3 years once the pac-12 money rolls in and well see what happens

 

[BlackNGold]

If Marolt was half the PR & marketing guy you're making him out to be, we'd have sold out every game from 1988 to whenever he left and have a waiting list 10,000 names long. He was there during the pinnacle of CU athletics, and yet we didn't add one seat of capacity to the stadium during his tenure here. He did nothing of any value to engender community support. He allowed the success or failure of the teams themselves dictate the level of support at the gate. He did nothing - that I know of - to diversify the revenue streams of the athletic department. I could be wrong on that, but Bohn has been far more visible in this regard than Marolt ever was.

I think you need to dig a little deeper....From 1989 thru 1996 CU had 30 sellouts over the same time period CU averaged over 50,000 in attendance every year peaking in 1995 with 52,160 attendance average.


When Marolt arrived CU was averaging 36,000 in attendance - getting that to consistently over 50,000 is an increase of over 40%.

Attendance was the best it has every been when Marolt was the AD. Now for comparison - if you think Bohn is a great Marketer - Since Bohn has been AD CU has had 3 sellout in 6 years. Attendance has declined under Mike Bohn and the population is over 25% greater than when Marolt was here.

Under Bohn attendance has sucked...last year the great marketing genius averaged 46,000 in attendance. He says that they sold 25,000 season tickets. Well it must be to people who do not go to the games. Because they seem always have tickets available even though he gives them away.

Marolt could teach Bohn plenty about marketing.

 

[slider]

We have been terrible at football under Bohn. The attendance wouldn't have been higher than 46,000 last year if they advertised all of Oregon's cheerleaders getting naked at halftime

 

[Buffnik]

Do we even have a "Director of Marketing" position within the CU AD? I know we have been running without a PR firm.

Honestly, a BCS athletic department shouldn't be bootstrapping the way ours has. I blame university leadership a lot for not providing funding to run a quality AD.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

I'd just like to know what restrictions the University of Colorado has, that people would like to see lifted.

What, exactly, is done / is not done, that people want CU's admin to do / no do?

Seems pretty easy to say "there isn't support" but I don't see much actual evidence of that.

Allow the AD to fire a football coach when he wants to.

 

[DBT]

Exactly what restrictions does everyone want to be lifted??

The ones DBT insists are there regardless of the evidence shown him to the contrary.

OK, I can't say with absolute conviction. I have asked this question over and over on this board and have never gotten one single response. Barnett claims the same. Mac claims the same. But you ****wads call me a crackpot. Here it is one more time. I may be totally wrong.

CU used to admit at risk student athletes in under a partial qualifier "window." That window was, pretty much, unlimited. Under Hoffman, that partial qualifier window was, pretty much, closed. MOST PROGRAMS, CAL FOR INSTANCE, ALLOW MANY PARTIAL QUALIFIERS. CU DOES NOT!!

For the umpteenth time, is this true or not? GB and Mac say it is true.

 

[DBT]

Here are the CU available majors. Where do you hide a ****** student?
http://www.colorado.edu/academics/majors.html

 

[DBT]

Here, for instance, are KState offerings. Compare.
http://www.k-state.edu/admissions/#p=academics

Click on "A to Z"

 

[sackman]

I think you need to dig a little deeper....From 1989 thru 1996 CU had 30 sellouts over the same time period CU averaged over 50,000 in attendance every year peaking in 1995 with 52,160 attendance average.


When Marolt arrived CU was averaging 36,000 in attendance - getting that to consistently over 50,000 is an increase of over 40%.

Attendance was the best it has every been when Marolt was the AD. Now for comparison - if you think Bohn is a great Marketer - Since Bohn has been AD CU has had 3 sellout in 6 years. Attendance has declined under Mike Bohn and the population is over 25% greater than when Marolt was here.

Under Bohn attendance has sucked...last year the great marketing genius averaged 46,000 in attendance. He says that they sold 25,000 season tickets. Well it must be to people who do not go to the games. Because they seem always have tickets available even though he gives them away.

Marolt could teach Bohn plenty about marketing.

And what did he do with all that? Nothing. Like I said, there wasn't a single seat added to Folsom during the greatest period of football dominance CU has ever enjoyed. He parlayed a MNC into the Dal Ward Center and that's it. An AD worth a damn would have managed to increase the stadium size by 15,000+ seats and made sure there were processes in place to get the damn place filled regardless of the opponent.

Marolt was OK. Certainly nothing fantastic. I give him credit for accomplishing a few things. Mostly, he wasted a golden opportunity, IMO.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Here, for instance, are KState offerings. Compare.
http://www.k-state.edu/admissions/#p=academics

Click on "A to Z"

Don't hate DBT, I hear the Interior Design and Landscaping Architercture majors are really selective.

 

[77buff]

And what did he do with all that? Nothing. Like I said, there wasn't a single seat added to Folsom during the greatest period of football dominance CU has ever enjoyed. He parlayed a MNC into the Dal Ward Center and that's it. An AD worth a damn would have managed to increase the stadium size by 15,000+ seats and made sure there were processes in place to get the damn place filled regardless of the opponent.

Marolt was OK. Certainly nothing fantastic. I give him credit for accomplishing a few things. Mostly, he wasted a golden opportunity, IMO.

We can't fill 50,000 so who fills the additional 15,000?

 

[DBT]

Don't hate DBT, I hear the Interior Design and Landscaping Architercture majors are really selective.

:lol: I work with a **** load of LA's.

 

[sackman]

We can't fill 50,000 so who fills the additional 15,000?

You're missing the point. At the time, we were a perennial top 10 football program. A really solid AD would leverage that into full stadiums with long wait lists for season tickets and an eventual expansion to the stadium. That's what happens in places like Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Ohio State, etc. Make no mistake, at that time, we were right there with all those schools in terms of on-field success. We entered the Bill Marolt era with a 52,000 seat stadium and a solid football program. We exited the Bill Marolt era with a nationally ranked football program and a 52,000 seat stadium. Any schlub can fill a 50,000 seat stadium with a top 10 football program. It's a lot harder to put 50,000 into a stadium to watch what we're going to see on Friday. And guess what? We'll have 50,000 in the stands on Friday.

 

[Buffnik]

OK, I can't say with absolute conviction. I have asked this question over and over on this board and have never gotten one single response. Barnett claims the same. Mac claims the same. But you ****wads call me a crackpot. Here it is one more time. I may be totally wrong.

CU used to admit at risk student athletes in under a partial qualifier "window." That window was, pretty much, unlimited. Under Hoffman, that partial qualifier window was, pretty much, closed. MOST PROGRAMS, CAL FOR INSTANCE, ALLOW MANY PARTIAL QUALIFIERS. CU DOES NOT!!

For the umpteenth time, is this true or not? GB and Mac say it is true.

Not allowing or limiting partial qualifiers was a conference decision made by both the Big 12 and Pac-12. The Pac-12 allows for 1 per year in football. This is a red herring and if Mac and GB are harping on this, then they're completely out of touch with the reality of the situation.