Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Jens1893, Nov 28, 2009.
Would it be clearer if CU had a prime minister and a chancellor?
EDIT: For the record, I have no idea what the difference is either, I was just amused by the German asking the "chancellor" question.
Benson is the President of the entire University of Colorado system. That includes CU-Boulder, CU-Denver, CU-Colorado Springs and the CU medical center. DiStephano is in charge of the Boulder campus.
What are things that suck?
Douchebags for $1000, Alex.
Correct. I would also add that DiStephano is also more involved in the day-to-day operations of the CU-Boulder campus while Benson's primary mission at this point in time is to work with the state legislature on higher education funding issues. Jens, you should also realize that any decision like the potential ouster of Hawkins must be approved by the Board of Regents, an elected board of nine members who approve appropriations for all CU campuses.
The President oversees all three campuses; Denver, Boulder, and Colorado Springs. The Chancellor oversees the Boulder Campus and answers to the President. Following the scandal the President's office moved off of the Boulder campus to Denver.
distefano doesn't hate sports, as far as i can tell. he was pretty supportive of our side of things when gb was getting hatcheted by the media and others.
benson, i don't know much about, but if the rumors of what he did are remotely accurate, then he is not on our side.
the answer is to petition the regents. at least half of them are sympathetic at worst and truly supportive at best of CU sports.
we'll get through this. it is going to be a lesson in anger management and all that type of thing if this staff continues to fail as spectacularly as they have been. woohoo.
That is what I've been thinking. When are they due for re-election? Because that will obviously be the time to put serious pressure on them to fix the problem and they have the power to wipe the entire slate clean.
Well both of them suck monkey balls
The difference is how many you have to suck a day, based on ur job title.
There are two levels of management over the highest paid person at the university.
Four, actually. Hawk reports to Bohn, who reports to DiStephano, who reports to Benson, who reports to the Regents.
This gets me thinking about the power structure of the university of Colorado in light of last week's decission to extend Hawkins. There is a bureacracy that can be expensive and inefficient.
Level 1: Colorado State Government. State constitution and law establishes 1) tax proceeds directed towards higher ed; 2) In-state tuition levels; 3) Cap on the percent of students that can be admitted from out of state; 3) Framework in which the University exists. Issue 1: State only contributes 6% of CU's budget generated from taxpayers, yet has influence over admissions and tuition decissions. Issue 2: With 94% of CU's revenue coming from tuition, fundraising, or private and government grants, does the State have a disproportionant amount of influence over how the university is run? Issue 3: The CUAD is funded through voluntary student fees, ticket sales, network contracts, conference revenue agreements, and licensing. No state taxpayer money is used to fund the CUAD. But as the state's "flagship" university, there is a perception that the CUAD is under the dominion of the taxpayer.
Level 2: The Regents (Steve Bosley - Chair, Joseph Neguse, Stephen Ludwig, James Geddes, Tom Lucero, Michael Carrigan, Kyle Hybl, Tillie Bishop, Monisha Merchant). These 8 positions are elected by their respective districts. This body votes on any changes to the terms of Hawkin's employment. Issue 1: The voters in each of these districts are assumed to be unable to distinguish private donations and tax-payer money when it comes to funding. Issue 2: The electorate generally opposes Higher Ed funding, and most voters do not consider CU football to be a priority. Issue 3: Out of state alumni and boosters hold no sway over the Regents. Issue 4: Do any of the Regents get elected based upon their support of CU football?
Level 3. Office of the President - Bruce Benson. Appointed by the Regents. Responsible for the entire university system, including the 4 campuses located in Boulder, Colo Springs, Denver, and the Anshultz Medical Campus in Aurora. Issue 1: The University is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. In the big scheme of things, a $45M CUAD budget is small potatoes. Issue 2: Benson was selected due to his business accumen and influence at the state capitol. His office is in Downtown Denver. He is a politician. Issue 3: Being a huge proponent of CU football is not considered being a politically wise priority in this down economy. Issue 4: The CUAD is a Boulder Campus responsibility, not an intra-campus institution. Issue 5: The operations of the Boulder campus falls to the Boulder Chancellor, except for big PR issues such as the Hawkins contract.
Level 4: The Boulder Chancellor - Phil Destephano. Responsible for the Operations of the Boulder campus, including Academic programs, staffing, admissions, campus budget and capital programs, and, oh yeah, the athletic department, too. Issue 1: The win-loss column of the FB program isn't the top priority. Issue 2: He can't afford to be out of synch with his boss or the regents. Issue 3: Money problems in a down economy.
Level 5: CUAD - Mike Bohn. Responsible for all of CU's athletic programs and facilities. Responsible for complying with NCAA, B12, title 9 provisions. Responsible for P/L of the CUAD, staffing decissions, community and booster outreach, and the athletic and academic performance of CU Boulder's student athletes.
Level 6: Football Coach and highest paid State Employee - Dan Hawkins. Recruit and graduate student athletes. Staffing of football operations. Media and booster relations. Community outreach (ie FB Camps). Compliance with NCAA FB rules. Oh yeah...field competitive teams. Issue 1: He's a State Employee, which comes with a lot of strings attached. Issue 2: Proceeds from the FB program funds the non-revenue sports. Issue 3: Arms race with conference and other D1 schools. Issue 4: Not located in geographical location that is considered a recruiting hotbed. Issue 5: Hostility and opposition towards program exists within community and state. Issue 6: Missing blue chip high dollar whales amongst the booster ranks. Issue 7: Admissions restrictions that are unique to CU.
Makes sense to me to privatize the CUAD and set it free from the jurisdiction of the regents and the multiple levels of institutional bureacracy. If it were privatized, the governence would include major stakeholders, and might include board governance to investors, one or more regent, members from all CU campuses, alumni, ect.
I'm just thinking through this. But would it make sense for the CUAD to report to Benson instead of DeStephano? This would serve to further leverage intracampus opportunities and improve fan outreach in the key front range communities where CU has a presence.
you do realize that, under tharp, the cuad ran much more autonomously than now? in fact, one of the big "reforms" was putting bohn as a direct report to the chancellor.
these ****s aren't going to lose the territory they seized when the so-called scandal did us wrong. we are permanently screwed absent a miracle, imho.
We are screwed if the University does not assess the competitive landscape and create a structure that facilitates success.
What we have now is an abundance of institutional control that lacks the flexibility to opperate effectively in today's college football environment.
Difference between DiStefano and Benson?
I don't know, what's the difference between a political hack and a spineless windsock?
Separate names with a comma.