What's new
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!

J-Fly Bye Bye?

Sorry, honey, the world is not black and white. You'll understand this, some day, maybe. Nice deflection on your comparison of playing and working, though. Congrats!


just curious what the highest level of competitive sports you have played is? and why you dont think playing at the D1 level or perhaps even pro-level would be comparable to a job, as hawk so tactfully pointed out these guys get about 3 weeks off a year.

Also free is an absolute term: like dead and no, there are not degrees of free much like you cant be kind of dead.
 
I don't understand why so many are so ready to rip Josh Smith to shreds, but I guess that is just me.
 
just curious what the highest level of competitive sports you have played is? and why you dont think playing at the D1 level or perhaps even pro-level would be comparable to a job, as hawk so tactfully pointed out these guys get about 3 weeks off a year.

Also free is an absolute term: like dead and no, there are not degrees of free much like you cant be kind of dead.

I beg to differ

[video=youtube;6GrYNaaYSjs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GrYNaaYSjs[/video]
 
I think bcs's forum needs another thread dumped in there. This one's looking like a good candidate.
 
:lol: you compare playing football to peeling potatoes

you are confusing work and play

It takes work to play. These guys dont just show up on Saturday and toss the ol pigskin around. Its probably harder work than your job.
 
It takes work to play. These guys dont just show up on Saturday and toss the ol pigskin around. Its probably harder work than your job.

Oh! So that's why the players spend the offseason and 5 days a week 'working out' before getting any play time.
 
Yes, I do find it somewhat interesting that four years later, interviews are still addressing primarily "changing the culture" and "being winners" rather than X's and O's or W's and L's.

Frankly, I think CU may have intentionally prioritized PR and touchy-feely over W/L. Do the people in charge really care whether or not football or hoops are successful as long as the coaches and AD are good media people? Sometimes I wonder. And by sometimes, I mean all the time. If the guys running the athletic department (Bohn, Hawkins) don't really care about winning, I have to wonder what they are doing being involved in major college athletics, besides making a lot of money and not, up to current point in time, really producing in any significant capacity.

There are plenty of other venues in the world - with much less at stake - to teach kids life lessons. High school sports. Little league. In the community.

Fact is, we can talk about character guys all we want. In reality - and this is just from observation, I haven't actually tallied anything - guys are still getting arrested fairly regularly. Guys are occasionally leaving the program (or, in Bz's case, frequently leaving the program). The teams are losing. A lot.

I honestly think at some point the $$ are going to start putting pressure on the AD to win, however, even if it is not a priority now because at some point the casual fans are going to stop going to the football games, like they have done with basketball games, because they don't care to invest signiifcant amounts of time and money to see mediocre teams-at-best teams, which is, IMO, an accurate way to classify CU FB and BB over the past several years.

I have already started to notice significant attendance problems at FB games midway through the season. Students, in particular, aren't showing up because they don't ever remember CU being good and they just don't give a ****. A lot of the guys on this board, I think, don't necessarily realize this because you guys have memories of CU being a really, really good football program. Younger CU fans don't. And reality is, at a school like CU, if the team is bad for years at a time, people stop caring. That is the way at most schools, I would think, actually. Places like Nebraska are an exception. One, they rarely have long down stretches, two, there isn't anything else going on at their university to occupy people's time. Point being, football must start winning games soon, or the AD is going to be really strapped for cash.

Is CU not in the position that losing any more sports programs at all is going to jeaporadize our D1 status? We have a lot riding on the successes of the fb team right now, I think, particularly when you consider the immediate future of the mbb team, which even the most determined optimistic among you I think will admit is pretty bleak atm.

I agree that it's time to focus on Ws and Ls. And I too have noted some of the adverse character issues in spite of "good guy" rhetoric. It's been better since last fall, and I hope our guys continue to keep their noses clean.

Here's where I disagree with your post.

Bohn must necessarily realize the correlation between winning and revenue generation. I get the impression that you believe that it will slap him in the forehead someday, but I assure you he already knows. And of course, the primary focus on Ws must must be with our revenue generating sport, football. It all starts there.

You further seem to believe that our Athletic Director is very concerned with Public Relations and not so concerned with a winning football program. I'd argue in the short term, the public relations will generate the private donations required to support a long-term winning program in the long run. It seems like a reasonable blueprint. Especially when you considered the enormous public relations disasters associated with the Tharp era. Public relations and winning are not mutually exclusive.

Where I primarily disagree with your post is your suspicion that Bohn and Hawk don't really care that much about winning.

Bohn brought in the head coach from Boise State. A guy that was most ready to make the jump to a BCS affiliated program and who boasted one of the best winning percentages in D-1 football. It was a smart hire, and really it brought in the best guy that we good afford with our meager resources.

Bohn has also supported significant upgrades to the lockeroom and practice facilities. Upgrades designed to attract star recruits.

To me he has shown a committment to winning. He can't fire Coach Hawkins for two reasons. It would set the program back, and undermine the foundational progress Coach Hawkins has made in bringing in a solid talent base.

Programs like Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida and nebraska can get away with swapping coaches around following a year-or-two of subpar results. Those schools have the name recognition which permits them to continue to attract star talent, and they can afford to pay coaches the big bucks--the sort of coaches that high school recruits recognize by name and face. But even most of those schools suffer in the short term. Look at Oklahoma and Texas in the 90s, Michigan last year, Notre Dame since 1990 and nebraska for this current millennium. Those coaching changes have taken their toll on even programs that should suffer minimally from such changes.

Coach Hawkins has somewhat overachieved on recruiting despite fighting against negative perceptions of our university. He came into a tough situation and is building in the right direction. Fast enough? I don't know, because while we talk about how bad things were when he arrived, I can't tell you honestly how he's done with what he's had to work with. I've got a hunch which says that things were pretty bad, and he's done the most with what he was given. I'm sure you and I (and syko) will continue to disagree on that point and that's okay.

But I tell you one thing, I don't question the man's drive to win. I still believe he's building something special and his media savvy serves as a foundation for winning games, not a substitute.

Finally, your post lacks what I see as a viable alternative. Like I said, we made a smart hire on paper (and I happen to believe in reality as well). What would you differently? Make another hire? That would set the program back even further.

As I've said in previous posts, programs like Kansas and Missouri demonstrate what a sustained tenure can do for a coach. It takes more time for the "have nots" to build a winning program. Look, I'm impatient too, and I genuinely hope this is the year (I graduated in 93 and stuck around for another year of grad school--my expectations are pretty high). But if it's not, I don't really see what choice we have except to wait it out and wait for it to pay dividends.

What would you do differently?
 
It takes work to play. These guys dont just show up on Saturday and toss the ol pigskin around. Its probably harder work than your job.

100% true for my brother-in-law who played, he spent the last 2 years of his career trying to rehab a shoulder or getting it cut open just to get back on the field.
 
It takes work to play. These guys dont just show up on Saturday and toss the ol pigskin around. Its probably harder work than your job.

If you mean physical work, you win the Captain Obvious award. That doesn't mean they aren't enjoying the hell out of themselves when they're on the field (that's called play), or that without the scholarship opportunity, they wouldn't be playing anyway.
 
Semantics...it's a tradeoff. They play for the no cost education and the exposure...by choice. It is not as if they are indentured servants. It is a mutual agreement by both parties who recieve a benefit from one another. Player plays, does not pay for education and gets the desired exposure. School gets money and builds a winning program to get more money...more money equals the possibility of making even more money. Sure, the benefit to the college is far greater, but lets be realistic; the money the school is "making" from these guys is being spread across all programs in the AD as well as improvements to the facilities, etc. It is a fair deal to both.
 
Long term is great for the player who does not go pro (which only about 4% of Div 1 FB players do). The average CO income for a HS graduate only is $27,915 versus $51,206 for those with a Bachelors degree. Which is nearly $700k more over a 30 year career. It is an amazingly sweet deal for those who would not have been able to afford to go to school without the scholarship (which is probably close to half). And for those that could, not having to payback student loans, burden parents, etc, is a pretty sweet deal also IMO.
 
If you mean physical work, you win the Captain Obvious award. That doesn't mean they aren't enjoying the hell out of themselves when they're on the field (that's called play), or that without the scholarship opportunity, they wouldn't be playing anyway.

So, wtf are you talking about then? You think people that enjoy thier jobs dont deserve to be compensated? You're kidding yourself if you think playing CFB is a big pajama party.
 
I agree that it's time to focus on Ws and Ls. And I too have noted some of the adverse character issues in spite of "good guy" rhetoric. It's been better since last fall, and I hope our guys continue to keep their noses clean.

Here's where I disagree with your post.

Bohn must necessarily realize the correlation between winning and revenue generation. I get the impression that you believe that it will slap him in the forehead someday, but I assure you he already knows. And of course, the primary focus on Ws must must be with our revenue generating sport, football. It all starts there.

You further seem to believe that our Athletic Director is very concerned with Public Relations and not so concerned with a winning football program. I'd argue in the short term, the public relations will generate the private donations required to support a long-term winning program in the long run. It seems like a reasonable blueprint. Especially when you considered the enormous public relations disasters associated with the Tharp era. Public relations and winning are not mutually exclusive.

Where I primarily disagree with your post is your suspicion that Bohn and Hawk don't really care that much about winning.

Bohn brought in the head coach from Boise State. A guy that was most ready to make the jump to a BCS affiliated program and who boasted one of the best winning percentages in D-1 football. It was a smart hire, and really it brought in the best guy that we good afford with our meager resources.

Bohn has also supported significant upgrades to the lockeroom and practice facilities. Upgrades designed to attract star recruits.

To me he has shown a committment to winning. He can't fire Coach Hawkins for two reasons. It would set the program back, and undermine the foundational progress Coach Hawkins has made in bringing in a solid talent base.

Programs like Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida and nebraska can get away with swapping coaches around following a year-or-two of subpar results. Those schools have the name recognition which permits them to continue to attract star talent, and they can afford to pay coaches the big bucks--the sort of coaches that high school recruits recognize by name and face. But even most of those schools suffer in the short term. Look at Oklahoma and Texas in the 90s, Michigan last year, Notre Dame since 1990 and nebraska for this current millennium. Those coaching changes have taken their toll on even programs that should suffer minimally from such changes.

Coach Hawkins has somewhat overachieved on recruiting despite fighting against negative perceptions of our university. He came into a tough situation and is building in the right direction. Fast enough? I don't know, because while we talk about how bad things were when he arrived, I can't tell you honestly how he's done with what he's had to work with. I've got a hunch which says that things were pretty bad, and he's done the most with what he was given. I'm sure you and I (and syko) will continue to disagree on that point and that's okay.

But I tell you one thing, I don't question the man's drive to win. I still believe he's building something special and his media savvy serves as a foundation for winning games, not a substitute.

Finally, your post lacks what I see as a viable alternative. Like I said, we made a smart hire on paper (and I happen to believe in reality as well). What would you differently? Make another hire? That would set the program back even further.

As I've said in previous posts, programs like Kansas and Missouri demonstrate what a sustained tenure can do for a coach. It takes more time for the "have nots" to build a winning program. Look, I'm impatient too, and I genuinely hope this is the year (I graduated in 93 and stuck around for another year of grad school--my expectations are pretty high). But if it's not, I don't really see what choice we have except to wait it out and wait for it to pay dividends.

What would you do differently?

Greeat post!:thumbsup: Rep!
 
I agree that it's time to focus on Ws and Ls. And I too have noted some of the adverse character issues in spite of "good guy" rhetoric. It's been better since last fall, and I hope our guys continue to keep their noses clean.

Here's where I disagree with your post.

Bohn must necessarily realize the correlation between winning and revenue generation. I get the impression that you believe that it will slap him in the forehead someday, but I assure you he already knows. And of course, the primary focus on Ws must must be with our revenue generating sport, football. It all starts there.

You further seem to believe that our Athletic Director is very concerned with Public Relations and not so concerned with a winning football program. I'd argue in the short term, the public relations will generate the private donations required to support a long-term winning program in the long run. It seems like a reasonable blueprint. Especially when you considered the enormous public relations disasters associated with the Tharp era. Public relations and winning are not mutually exclusive.

Where I primarily disagree with your post is your suspicion that Bohn and Hawk don't really care that much about winning.

Bohn brought in the head coach from Boise State. A guy that was most ready to make the jump to a BCS affiliated program and who boasted one of the best winning percentages in D-1 football. It was a smart hire, and really it brought in the best guy that we good afford with our meager resources.

Bohn has also supported significant upgrades to the lockeroom and practice facilities. Upgrades designed to attract star recruits.

To me he has shown a committment to winning. He can't fire Coach Hawkins for two reasons. It would set the program back, and undermine the foundational progress Coach Hawkins has made in bringing in a solid talent base.

Programs like Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida and nebraska can get away with swapping coaches around following a year-or-two of subpar results. Those schools have the name recognition which permits them to continue to attract star talent, and they can afford to pay coaches the big bucks--the sort of coaches that high school recruits recognize by name and face. But even most of those schools suffer in the short term. Look at Oklahoma and Texas in the 90s, Michigan last year, Notre Dame since 1990 and nebraska for this current millennium. Those coaching changes have taken their toll on even programs that should suffer minimally from such changes.

Coach Hawkins has somewhat overachieved on recruiting despite fighting against negative perceptions of our university. He came into a tough situation and is building in the right direction. Fast enough? I don't know, because while we talk about how bad things were when he arrived, I can't tell you honestly how he's done with what he's had to work with. I've got a hunch which says that things were pretty bad, and he's done the most with what he was given. I'm sure you and I (and syko) will continue to disagree on that point and that's okay.

But I tell you one thing, I don't question the man's drive to win. I still believe he's building something special and his media savvy serves as a foundation for winning games, not a substitute.

Finally, your post lacks what I see as a viable alternative. Like I said, we made a smart hire on paper (and I happen to believe in reality as well). What would you differently? Make another hire? That would set the program back even further.

As I've said in previous posts, programs like Kansas and Missouri demonstrate what a sustained tenure can do for a coach. It takes more time for the "have nots" to build a winning program. Look, I'm impatient too, and I genuinely hope this is the year (I graduated in 93 and stuck around for another year of grad school--my expectations are pretty high). But if it's not, I don't really see what choice we have except to wait it out and wait for it to pay dividends.

What would you do differently?

Rep
 
So, wtf are you talking about then? You think people that enjoy thier jobs dont deserve to be compensated? You're kidding yourself if you think playing CFB is a big pajama party.

:rolleyes: (Reading is an important skill.) I never said it was completely free. There are levels of free, despite some posts to the contrary. I was really just making fun of the comparison to peeling potatoes, which is absurd on any level.
 
So, wtf are you talking about then? You think people that enjoy thier jobs dont deserve to be compensated? You're kidding yourself if you think playing CFB is a big pajama party.

The difference is most FB players would play anyway even if they weren't being "compensated" with a scholarship, the average guy (even if he enjoys his job) probably wouldn't do it for free.

Just because something is hard doesn't make it "work". Running a marathon is hard and requires lots of practice, but most people don't run marathons for compensation - they do it because they enjoy it.

Playing D1 football is hard and requires a lot of time and effort on the part of the players, but it's not work, it's a game.
 
:rolleyes: (Reading is an important skill.) I never said it was completely subsidized. There are levels of subsidy. I was really just making fun of the comparison to peeling potatoes, which is absurd on any level.

Fixed, because free and subsidized do not have the same meaning. Anyone who can differentiate between potato peeling and football should know this.
 
The difference is most FB players would play anyway even if they weren't being "compensated" with a scholarship, the average guy (even if he enjoys his job) probably wouldn't do it for free.

Just because something is hard doesn't make it "work". Running a marathon is hard and requires lots of practice, but most people don't run marathons for compensation - they do it because they enjoy it.

Playing D1 football is hard and requires a lot of time and effort on the part of the players, but it's not work, it's a game.

They may play somewhere, but if they have to pay oos tuition it would'nt necessarily be here. You are not going to put in the time just to be able to spend a dozen Saturdays a year playing football, if there is nothing to gain.
 
Man, talk about a thread jack. When did this JFly thread meld with the "Players get free education" thread? :wow:
 
The difference is most FB players would play anyway even if they weren't being "compensated" with a scholarship, the average guy (even if he enjoys his job) probably wouldn't do it for free.

Just because something is hard doesn't make it "work". Running a marathon is hard and requires lots of practice, but most people don't run marathons for compensation - they do it because they enjoy it.

Playing D1 football is hard and requires a lot of time and effort on the part of the players, but it's not work, it's a game.

The difference between an amateur marathon runner and a d-1 football player is that the "work" of one benefits someone else. Unless the runner is sponsored (in which case he or she is probably getting paid), no one benefits from them running except them. A D-1 college makes a TON of money off of football and basketball players. Some even make money off of other sports. There is a quid-pro-quo: "You, the student athlete, work hard, play the sport for which you signed up, represent the school; we, the school will provide you with an education and get to use your likeness and actions to make more money than you are ever going to see."

Both sides give something and receive something in return. Whether the student WOULD do it for nothing (i.e., walk-on) is irrelevant. They ARE getting something and are expected to give something back. If they don't, the school has the right to take that education away (since a scholarship is only year-to-year.
 
Man, talk about a thread jack. When did this JFly thread meld with the "Players get free education" thread? :wow:

Mostly because this thread has a better chance of getting to 30 pages.:huh:
 
Man, talk about a thread jack. When did this JFly thread meld with the "Players get free education" thread? :wow:

right around the point I bought leash's clock through certified mail.
 
The difference is most FB players would play anyway even if they weren't being "compensated" with a scholarship, the average guy (even if he enjoys his job) probably wouldn't do it for free..

This is true but would they practice? do off season work outs? stay in boulder over the holidays? got to community service events? There is a huge difference between play football as a game and doing it for a job.
 
This is true but would they practice? do off season work outs? stay in boulder over the holidays? got to community service events? There is a huge difference between play football as a game and doing it for a job.


If they played in front of tens of thousands of fans every week, got to play on tv, and had even the slightest hope of ever playing pro ball...yes they would do all of that.
 
Back
Top