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!

Why does the CU Athletic Department always struggle financially? What can be done?

WarBuff said:
Gut punch to read about working with University of Wyoming on developing blockchain technology. This is just another example of the failure of CU “leadership”.
Click to expand...
He’s a brilliant guy but his politics are scary. Cynthia Lummis, the Senator from Wyoming and Wyoming alumna, is a major crypto supporter.
 
CU never had a funding problems from the 1960's to the year 2000. Shortly after that the toilet water started circling. They can't seem to get there old Mojo back. It's often said, you learn from your mistakes. CU hasn't learned from there past mistakes and continues to make poor decisions.
 
Hugegroove said:
CU never had a funding problems from the 1960's to the year 2000. Shortly after that the toilet water started circling. They can't seem to get there old Mojo back. It's often said, you learn from your mistakes. CU hasn't learned from there past mistakes and continues to make poor decisions.
Click to expand...
So much has changed since then. And it continues to change as I type. CU isn’t alone in this race, but it’s been clear for several years now that there are those who are willing and able to maintain and push the pace of evolution in the sport, and there are others who are helpless to do anything about it. I think you know where CU stands in that equation.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
I follow him on twitter. His dad is a prominent climate scientist at CIRES. He has been primarily in climate studies, mostly known lately for critiquing the politicizing and misuse of data in climate science. From what I can tell he is not a climate denier, but what I would call a realist, somebody who forces you to actually use the data the way data should be used. The last several years he also taught classes in sports governance at CU and knows his stuff. His BA is in math, masters in public policy, and PhD in political science.
Click to expand...
Crazy. I’d figure math would be a B.S. 🤷‍♂️
 
my observation from eight years living in CO is that sports fans here generally only have interest in spectator events played by millionaires. I think this attitude is reflected in athletic donors as well.
 
Bliff Cranch said:
So much has changed since then. And it continues to change as I type. CU isn’t alone in this race, but it’s been clear for several years now that there are those who are willing and able to maintain and push the pace of evolution in the sport, and there are others who are helpless to do anything about it. I think you know where CU stands in that equation.
Click to expand...
I might add that when Gordon Gee left CU for Ohio State that left a big hole to fill. Gee understood the financial impact FB had at CU. A few years down the road, enter Elizabeth Hoffman and eventually Mark Kennedy. Neither one of them gave two sh**ts about FB or the AD.
 
I was curious about the Dan Hawkins extension we've so heavily criticized Bohn for inking after the 3-2 start in year 3.

We've been told that contract financially handcuffed the program & we had to hang onto DH for 2 years too long.

The deal Bohn did? Base salary was under $1M per year with some decent incentives & buyout money coming our way if he got poached during the 5-year deal.

That's what we hated Bohn for doing.

That's the level of willingness Phil D's CU has for dealing with the politics of paying dead money to a failed coach.
 
I think that that CU generates is more than enough to be competitive.

My belief is that the CU administration does not understand the value of a successful athletic program. Rather than support excellence they get in the way and bleed the program.

I don't see anything changing until the top level administration decides that winning has value and demands it.

I see a lot of blaming of RG here but what AD have we not blamed. They work for the administration.
 
Buffnik said:
I was curious about the Dan Hawkins extension we've so heavily criticized Bohn for inking after the 3-2 start in year 3.

We've been told that contract financially handcuffed the program & we had to hang onto DH for 2 years too long.

The deal Bohn did? Base salary was under $1M per year with some decent incentives & buyout money coming our way if he got poached during the 5-year deal.

That's what we hated Bohn for doing.

That's the level of willingness Phil D's CU has for dealing with the politics of paying dead money to a failed coach.
Click to expand...
The market for college coaches has changed.
 
Like any business, there is a spend on Sales & Marketing (S&M) that is appropriate for each business situation. Athletics should be looked at as S&M spend by the University, but instead it's treated as a stand-alone entity that should pay for itself at minimum.

The CU admin needs to decide how much of their overall budget is worthy of building their brand at this juncture in time, and for how long. Is a 5 year campaign to invest in that brand at this point in time, of $X Million (just spitballing here) a reasonable investment to make, given the payback opportunities over the next Y years?

How effective is football success in building that brand and attracting new lifetime customers? What is that lifetime customer worth?

USC and Oregon have gotten the message that this business needs to not operate within the confines of a stand-alone business but is part of the overall brand/image of the business and it's Sales/Marketing spend. They are making huge investments in coaching staff, NIL, etc. They have seen the light that the SEC is not coming back to the old way of looking at football.


I'd suggest that CFB is at a crossroads. The lifetime value of a customer may be NOT BE quite different for Clemson or Alabama than it is for Arizona or Colorado. I think it really comes down to a different perception of what football does for the overall brand of the University.

The P5 is a broken concept. Some members are on a train to a different destination and many are not boarding that train. We are now in an era where we have 1 superconference, plus a few members of the other P5 conferences who have boarded that train. Perhaps it's time for a 3rd tier?

FWIW, while CSU admin knows they are not currently investing to compete with Clemson or Alabama, they are investing to build their brand all the same. They have a fixed cost to cover (Stadium bonds) and they are thus willing to invest in their staff because a losing program will not allow them to cover the bond. Where a top Mountain West program can fill that stadium and absolutely be an excellent investment in brand. Yes, CSU is unlikely to ever be competitive with those SEC type programs. But their fan base can have a wonderful experience going 10-2 and to a bowl game each year (ala Boise State) and they can absolutely build their brand and reap rewards vs a PAC12 school going 4-8 on average year after year.
 
buffaholic said:
Like any business, there is a spend on Sales & Marketing (S&M) that is appropriate for each business situation. Athletics should be looked at as S&M spend by the University, but instead it's treated as a stand-alone entity that should pay for itself at minimum.

The CU admin needs to decide how much of their overall budget is worthy of building their brand at this juncture in time, and for how long. Is a 5 year campaign to invest in that brand at this point in time, of $X Million (just spitballing here) a reasonable investment to make, given the payback opportunities over the next Y years?

How effective is football success in building that brand and attracting new lifetime customers? What is that lifetime customer worth?

USC and Oregon have gotten the message that this business needs to not operate within the confines of a stand-alone business but is part of the overall brand/image of the business and it's Sales/Marketing spend. They are making huge investments in coaching staff, NIL, etc. They have seen the light that the SEC is not coming back to the old way of looking at football.


I'd suggest that CFB is at a crossroads. The lifetime value of a customer may be NOT BE quite different for Clemson or Alabama than it is for Arizona or Colorado. I think it really comes down to a different perception of what football does for the overall brand of the University.

The P5 is a broken concept. Some members are on a train to a different destination and many are not boarding that train. We are now in an era where we have 1 superconference, plus a few members of the other P5 conferences who have boarded that train. Perhaps it's time for a 3rd tier?

FWIW, while CSU admin knows they are not currently investing to compete with Clemson or Alabama, they are investing to build their brand all the same. They have a fixed cost to cover (Stadium bonds) and they are thus willing to invest in their staff because a losing program will not allow them to cover the bond. Where a top Mountain West program can fill that stadium and absolutely be an excellent investment in brand. Yes, CSU is unlikely to ever be competitive with those SEC type programs. But their fan base can have a wonderful experience going 10-2 and to a bowl game each year (ala Boise State) and they can absolutely build their brand and reap rewards vs a PAC12 school going 4-8 on average year after year.
Click to expand...
Your point on CSU is well taken. A Boise State type of program is a great goal and you’d think it would be attainable if the team can cobble together a string of winning seasons. Sheep fans will emerge from the shadows if the team is good. As for CU, the school pulls in a lot of money on out of state tuition and I’m not sure that the Admins think much about the need for branding. As long as the Allysons and Joshes keep coming from Illinois and New Jersey to smoke dope and ride mountain bikes it’s all good up there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top