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!

Barnett on the Fan, just ripped the CU administration.

White_Rabbit said:
Hasn't Mick said numerous times the academic hate for football is seriously overblown?
Click to expand...

yes. and it's not like at UT or NU that all the faculty are big football fans who grease the wheels in the classroom. they are similarly indifferent.

GoldenBuff said:
As "research faculty" now myself, I can confirm this. I know there are some who think that way but they are definitely in the minority, at least inasmuch as I've observed. Honestly, I think that most faculty members just don't care because they're too busy dealing with grant writing and teaching. My boss doesn't even give 2 $hits about the day to day operation of his own lab so I don't think football is even on his radar.
Click to expand...

this.

i've been a grad student or worked at CU since 1998. i can only remember two times in those 12 years EVER hearing a faculty member discuss the football team or D-1 athletics of their own account. the faculty are largely indifferent. i bet more than half of faculty i know wouldn't be able to name the conference we were in....until recent move to the Pac news. this idea that the "academic side" is a militant, powerful, single-minded force seeking to undermine football at CU is inaccurate. it's also inaccurate to conflate the faculty with the administration at CU, another easy and somewhat intellectually lazy scapegoating mechanism i see around here too often. the people who do the day to day classroom work and instruction at CU are not the ones to blame for the state of CU football....however easy it may be to think so.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I miss Gary Barnett. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think he is a good football coach. He can develop players, and could recruit. You get what you get with him. You are going to contend for conference championships, win them occasionally, and have some seasons that are just completely lost.

At this point, his coaching capital looks to be in the negative, doesn't look like he will be back on the BCS level. But man, would I have enjoyed watching MJD and Jeremy Maclin rather than Hawk's steaming pile of garbage. And I always wonder about the Northwestern J-School grad sportswriters playing a role in his demise... Rick Morrissey of the Chicago Tribune never lets down, he tries to associate every bad thing in college football with Gary Barnett, bitter much?
 
sackman said:
Where GB is wrong is by saying Hawkins was a good hire. He wasn't. He was a miserable failure. He was totally incompetent and had no business on the sideline of a major BCS school.
Click to expand...

I think we are all kidding ourselves if we say Hawkins was not a good hire at the time. He was one of the most desirable coaches in the game and he had turned down a few really good opportunities the season prior to coming to CU. It didn't work out, some can be blamed on recruiting and coaching, but not all the blame is Hawk's, we do have issues independent of a coach. Hindsight is 20/20.
 
FrankRizzo said:
Honestly, I miss Gary Barnett. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think he is a good football coach. He can develop players, and could recruit. You get what you get with him. You are going to contend for conference championships, win them occasionally, and have some seasons that are just completely lost.

At this point, his coaching capital looks to be in the negative, doesn't look like he will be back on the BCS level. But man, would I have enjoyed watching MJD and Jeremy Maclin rather than Hawk's steaming pile of garbage. And I always wonder about the Northwestern J-School grad sportswriters playing a role in his demise... Rick Morrissey of the Chicago Tribune never lets down, he tries to associate every bad thing in college football with Gary Barnett, bitter much?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to bash GB or defend Hawk, but I feel that GB's greatest flaw was his inability to recruit to the level his teams were playing. That's not to say he couldn't recruit, but he was not great at it. Hawk meanwhile, I thought outdid his on-field performance; he was great at recruiting given wins or a promising team. Take wins and promise away though...and you get last year's class.

As for MJD, he committed to EB, not GB; hence why he went to UCLA. He would've gone there irregardless of GB staying at CU. Also, even though GB is confident he would've landed Maclin, there's nothing set in stone with 18 year old kids. Who knows if this would've happened, and even so, who would've thrown him the ball? White? I'm not convinced White-Maclin would've been as good as Daniels-Maclin. Daniels was pretty special in my opinion...
 
I gotta side on GB still being bitter about how things ended. The former administration did hang him out to dry, I still say if anybody had any balls back then they should have been front and center challenging Mary (Homer) Keenan and her BS. Not that he's wrong about the "culture" and admin at CU still; I think Skippy summed it up best when he left for UW "CU is the best program money can't buy".
 
Last edited:
I am glad GB said those things. It just helps the Admin further understand what needs to be done.

As a side note, my love/hate for GB evolved over the years. When 70-3 happened I couldn't wait to get him out of town. However, GB was a winning machine compared to DII. For me, DII succeeded in raising GB's credentials to nearly monumental levels.
 
GoldenBuff said:
As "research faculty" now myself, I can confirm this. I know there are some who think that way but they are definitely in the minority, at least inasmuch as I've observed. Honestly, I think that most faculty members just don't care because they're too busy dealing with grant writing and teaching. My boss doesn't even give 2 $hits about the day to day operation of his own lab so I don't think football is even on his radar.
Click to expand...
That has the feel of 100% truth. I don't think CU is as unique (in that regard) as people think it is.
 
Mick Ronson said:
yes. and it's not like at UT or NU that all the faculty are big football fans who grease the wheels in the classroom. they are similarly indifferent.



this.

i've been a grad student or worked at CU since 1998. i can only remember two times in those 12 years EVER hearing a faculty member discuss the football team or D-1 athletics of their own account. the faculty are largely indifferent. i bet more than half of faculty i know wouldn't be able to name the conference we were in....until recent move to the Pac news. this idea that the "academic side" is a militant, powerful, single-minded force seeking to undermine football at CU is inaccurate. it's also inaccurate to conflate the faculty with the administration at CU, another easy and somewhat intellectually lazy scapegoating mechanism i see around here too often. the people who do the day to day classroom work and instruction at CU are not the ones to blame for the state of CU football....however easy it may be to think so.
Click to expand...
I think you have a major misconception about the UT faculty. I’m sure there are football fans among them, but UT is no different from any other ranked academic institution with regard to the general makeup of the faculty. They are “academic types” and probably very few even went to UT or even care about football. If you think UT profs are a bunch of good ole boys you are sadly mistaken. High school, sure, but not profs at UT. Try taking an engineering class. They barely speak English. They don’t even know what football is.
 
CUBUFF80 said:
I gotta side on GB still being bitter about how things ended. The former administration did hang him out to dry, I still say if anybody had any balls back then they should have been front and center challenging Mary (Homer) Keenan and her BS. Not that he's wrong about the "culture" and admin at CU still; I think Skippy summed it up best when he left for UW "CU is the best program money can't buy".
Click to expand...


Yeah - he got robbed. $3 mil robbery.
 
HornBuff said:
I think you have a major misconception about the UT faculty. I’m sure there are football fans among them, but UT is no different from any other ranked academic institution with regard to the general makeup of the faculty. They are “academic types” and probably very few even went to UT or even care about football. If you think UT profs are a bunch of good ole boys you are sadly mistaken. High school, sure, but not profs at UT. Try taking an engineering class. They barely speak English. They don’t even know what football is.
Click to expand...

reading comprehension, bevo
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Barnett's slush fund must be running low. The $3 million CU paid him wasn't enough?
Click to expand...

Your hate agenda for Barnett blinds you. There was no slush fund...it was thoroughly investigated and there was no wrong doing found to exist. Gary Barnett set up a fund from the football camps and used that money to reward his assistants - things like pay college tuition for his assistants children - that is the way he overcame the lack of pay for his assistance. I only chime in because of I get tired of people telling and retelling lies to the point others thinking it is fact.
 
BlackNGold said:
Your hate agenda for Barnett blinds you. There was no slush fund...it was thoroughly investigated and there was no wrong doing found to exist. Gary Barnett set up a fund from the football camps and used that money to reward his assistants - things like pay college tuition for his assistants children - that is the way he overcame the lack of pay for his assistance. I only chime in because of I get tired of people telling and retelling lies to the point others thinking it is fact.
Click to expand...


You are right and it was wrong of me to insinuate that there was a "slush fund". What I was trying (and failed) to convey was that CU paid Barnett off to the tune of $3 million. Exactly what was due on his coaching contract. The University owes him nothing.
 
Just listened to the interview. GB is right about the admin. Unless they get on board and emphasize athletics, CU will be no better than middle of the Pac 12. I would defer to Mick, I suspect the faculty is a non-player, neither supportive nor a hurdle.

GB was flat wrong about some things on D II. Yes, he was the hot hire. I was excited about it. D II did not deserve any more time. IMO he got one year too many. No coach in the history of time has ever suggested another coach should be fired. I've said it before, if it were up to the coaches, Gerry Faust would still be at ND. D II was condescending, arrogant and generally acted like a jerk to fans/alumni. He also was completely incapable of fielding a competitive team, much less a winner...we won't even go into his NC boasts at the outset of his dismal tenure.

I liked one name GB threw out as a candidate: Glen Mason. GB knows solid ocaches. I am not saying Mason is the guy, but whatever you think about GB, he knows coaching. It is too bad the admin. would not support him, absent the "scandal", I think he would have been a very good coach for CU long term. The wheels began to come off in '03 when the scandal broke. His tenure from '99-'02 was pretty damn good and the future looked bright...
 
CU's administration is ineffective, bloated, and disorganized at nearly every level in my experience. the Chancellor's and Prez's relationship with the AD is just one of many examples. even in better economic times how the university can always be broke given the far-more-than-nearly any peer institution amount of out-of-state tuition rolling in year by year....is an enduring, illustrative example. the extensive bureaucracy of the administration must hemorrhage money. other schools manage without the out-of-state superfund that CU has. yes, part of this answer is lack of state funding but public moneys is a necessary but not sufficient explanation here imo.

someone a while back suggested the AD partner with the Leeds School to produce some PR/advertising. that's a perfectly rational, collaborative win-win type idea that is precisely the kind of intra-campus communications and partnerships that don't happen. units of the campus have very little working relationships with one another...there is no sum that is more, just parts. so, when the big dogs come out to make decisions, it should surprise no one that the parts are not in coordination. weird.
 
Last edited:
Mick, your post is disturbing to say the least. Why wouldn't all departments work together?
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
You are right and it was wrong of me to insinuate that there was a "slush fund". What I was trying (and failed) to convey was that CU paid Barnett off to the tune of $3 million. Exactly what was due on his coaching contract. The University owes him nothing.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that.
 
Hey easy on bashing a GJHS Tiger. Here is statue on Main St.

059-08K26.jpg
 
Mick Ronson said:
reading comprehension, bevo
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm not the smartest guy in the room. You tell me what I'm missing, what I'm not comprehending from this post: "...and it's not like at UT or NU that all the faculty are big football fans who grease the wheels in the classroom".

Seems like I answered that directly, but I'm just a simple caveman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top