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!
Phil's comment to Regents on race - WTF?
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Jenni Reed (RG's daughter)
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
Timing is curious. My commute sports station has four guys at Pac media days. Their CU discussion the last couple days has been that Sefo is the only QB at media days and Will MM be there next year. Was this an effort to shift the discussion from how he has been the cellar of the PAC? If so, I would have liked a huge push on our awesome facilities. If not, it would have been better to put this out there next week.
I think sports and the military are two of the leaders in this area, and there is still progress to be made.
I worked at a company that went through a huge diversity push in the eighties. In retrospect it did more harm than good. Ladies were pissed at men and became vocally charged. White guys were told their advancement opportunities would be limited by metrics that weighted ethnicity. While all of this may have been simmering, it brought it all to the surface and made people with an axe to grind have a voice which took over a ton of company time and did little to advance shareholder value. I hope CU athletics can do it better than my former employer. I personally don't feel like DeSteph is the right guy to lead that effort.
I think sports and the military are two of the leaders in this area, and there is still progress to be made.
I worked at a company that went through a huge diversity push in the eighties. In retrospect it did more harm than good. Ladies were pissed at men and became vocally charged. White guys were told their advancement opportunities would be limited by metrics that weighted ethnicity. While all of this may have been simmering, it brought it all to the surface and made people with an axe to grind have a voice which took over a ton of company time and did little to advance shareholder value. I hope CU athletics can do it better than my former employer. I personally don't feel like DeSteph is the right guy to lead that effort.
Deleted member 807
Guest
High marks for passive aggressiveness.
It's easier to shoot the messenger than confront the issue head on. Right?
I am, in fact, interested in CU's leadership taking the program to lofty heights. It's in my best interest that CU excels on and off the field. This is inclusive of inclusiveness.
Yesterday's news was a gaff. The spirit of what Phil wants to do on campus to address inclusiveness is a-okay with me.
I'd have rather Phil coordinate with Rick George prior to yesterday's meeting to address this important issue and announce a tangible program. I'd rather not see yesterday's headlines surprising everyone in the twittersphere.
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
Mountain asked "Where is CU better because of Phil's contribution?"
I'm interested if anyone has a positive story? I don't, but recognize I am jaded by an overzealous football focus. Yesterday's stuff was frankly the first potentially bold thing I remember from him. Poorly timed and phrased, but could lead to some good.
I'm interested if anyone has a positive story? I don't, but recognize I am jaded by an overzealous football focus. Yesterday's stuff was frankly the first potentially bold thing I remember from him. Poorly timed and phrased, but could lead to some good.
The one positive I have on Phil is that he's a calming figure on tensions. CU has a tendency to develop factions and have a lot of tension. He's a political animal who smoothes a lot of that.
What will be interesting to me is the direction CU-Boulder goes with its next Chancellor. Will they focus on someone who is more business focused or someone who is more academic?
Mb2658
Well-Known Member
I guess I group this story in with any "anonymous sources" or unattributed third party information. It is very easy to run out and say "someone told me X." It is a lot more difficult to put a name to the information. There is a reason why hearsay isn't allowed in criminal court.
While I appreciate that the person who said this may not want to come out publicly, Phil is thrusting it into the spotlight. Does the story of one unattributed source mean that there is an underlying issue? I don't know. There could be. But the information is as only as good as the source and at this point we don't know who that is.
People have also been known to use unattributed third party quotes to advance their own agenda. Take the UVA Rolling Stone article for example. I don't know Phil or what his underlying agenda is. I still don't really trust that he has the best interests of the Athletic Department in mind given his past record.
At the end of the day, this issue is bigger than the Athletic Department. I think that people should have open and honest discussions about race and if players really feel that way then they should come forward and we should do everything in our power to show them how important and valuable they are to the University and the Buff Nation as a whole.
While I appreciate that the person who said this may not want to come out publicly, Phil is thrusting it into the spotlight. Does the story of one unattributed source mean that there is an underlying issue? I don't know. There could be. But the information is as only as good as the source and at this point we don't know who that is.
People have also been known to use unattributed third party quotes to advance their own agenda. Take the UVA Rolling Stone article for example. I don't know Phil or what his underlying agenda is. I still don't really trust that he has the best interests of the Athletic Department in mind given his past record.
At the end of the day, this issue is bigger than the Athletic Department. I think that people should have open and honest discussions about race and if players really feel that way then they should come forward and we should do everything in our power to show them how important and valuable they are to the University and the Buff Nation as a whole.
So let's say that players do refer to Dal Ward as "The Plantation". I'm assuming Phil was talking to Medford, because he's really connected with players on these issues, and very good at expressing issues in reasonable means. So there is probably something there.
The issues are: the players don't feel as though they are getting much out of this experience. That other athletes benefit from their hard work. And that their greatest value is on the athletic field.
How would you go about solving that without resorting to diversity training or role playing? Isn't that the question?
1. Express the value of the scholarship (for those that are on scholarship), and the opportunity to play the sport that the athletes presumably love at a high level. Remember, in high school they wanted this more than anything. So it's critical to understand the feedback (from those that feel that way, at least) to determine how the reality of the experience differs from the expectation.
2. Yes, it's true that they are funding other sports. Shouldn't that be a source of pride. I know a lot of athletes from non-revenue sports and they feel they play second fiddle to the football program. So, really, what's the source of resentment here? Playing for the best resourced, most visible sport? I think there needs to be a real dialogue to determine why this is a source of frustration, because it doesn't really make sense on the surface.
3. Is their only value athletic ability? I know that there is a very directed effort for the citizenship/leadership program, designed to counter this very sentiment. Is the program effective? I don't know. I'd like to see more evidence than some anonymous anecdotal feedback. But if the program isn't effective (and I have a lot of respect for the director) it's okay to tweek it.
Addressing real issues looks very different than just telling on yourself without broader context. There's a very reall, tangible way to tackle these concerns (without role playing or diversity training).
The issues are: the players don't feel as though they are getting much out of this experience. That other athletes benefit from their hard work. And that their greatest value is on the athletic field.
How would you go about solving that without resorting to diversity training or role playing? Isn't that the question?
1. Express the value of the scholarship (for those that are on scholarship), and the opportunity to play the sport that the athletes presumably love at a high level. Remember, in high school they wanted this more than anything. So it's critical to understand the feedback (from those that feel that way, at least) to determine how the reality of the experience differs from the expectation.
2. Yes, it's true that they are funding other sports. Shouldn't that be a source of pride. I know a lot of athletes from non-revenue sports and they feel they play second fiddle to the football program. So, really, what's the source of resentment here? Playing for the best resourced, most visible sport? I think there needs to be a real dialogue to determine why this is a source of frustration, because it doesn't really make sense on the surface.
3. Is their only value athletic ability? I know that there is a very directed effort for the citizenship/leadership program, designed to counter this very sentiment. Is the program effective? I don't know. I'd like to see more evidence than some anonymous anecdotal feedback. But if the program isn't effective (and I have a lot of respect for the director) it's okay to tweek it.
Addressing real issues looks very different than just telling on yourself without broader context. There's a very reall, tangible way to tackle these concerns (without role playing or diversity training).
Deleted member 807
Guest
Also to build on Uncle Ken's post, it's critical to explain Title 9.
The existence of women's soccer, women's golf, and other women's programs at CU makes it possible for CU football to exist.
A young man might not see the wisdom of Title 9. But it is the law of the land. If what Phil said is true, it may be worth while educating students on what Title 9 is, explain why the law was passed, and how CU complies with this requirement.
If Title 9 is something that a student athlete doesn't agree with, then educate what the ramifications are for being out of compliance, and encourage student athletes to participate in policy discussions.
The existence of women's soccer, women's golf, and other women's programs at CU makes it possible for CU football to exist.
A young man might not see the wisdom of Title 9. But it is the law of the land. If what Phil said is true, it may be worth while educating students on what Title 9 is, explain why the law was passed, and how CU complies with this requirement.
If Title 9 is something that a student athlete doesn't agree with, then educate what the ramifications are for being out of compliance, and encourage student athletes to participate in policy discussions.
If UncleKen is still looking for work, the AD should give him a look!
that could actually be a class in the sports gov't school
When I was lecturing at George Washington, I introduced Title 9 as a topic. No single topic generated more (and recurring) conversation that that one.
Don't you lecture me!
Deleted member 807
Guest
George Washington had a plantation. It's called Mount Vernon. Did that come up before in conversation?
Oddly, it didn't.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
Within some programs (e.g. BU) the football program kills itself. Those are the real 'plantations,' and their lawyerly admin would never talk like this. This Di Stefano thing is a great example of how the culture around Boulder and CU admin really creates an inhospitable environment for football. It lends credence to the arguments that past coaching hasn't been the main cause of the 'lost decade.'
He is speaking off the cuff about things he has heard second-hand. What is the context in which player(s) said these things. Were they said tongue-in-cheek? How many players really felt this way? etc... Here is a hint: sound bites stick. I don't want our new, beautiful, largely donor funded Dal Ward to become known as 'the plantation.' That hurts both recruitment and donations, while SOLVING NOTHING.
Di Stefano's heart is probably in the right place...CU and the Boulder community have always wanted to lead in addressing the most pressing issues of identity politics; whether it be gender, racial or economic inequality. But he needs to think and plan at a tactical level before he talks. He needs to coordinate with RG and MM. He needs to be clear that this perception is an issue across college football. He needs to start executing a plan to address such an issue before he starts talking publicly, and once he does start talking, he needs to sell the exciting plan that makes CU the flagship program for equality within the NCAA. That is how he could help without hurting.
He is speaking off the cuff about things he has heard second-hand. What is the context in which player(s) said these things. Were they said tongue-in-cheek? How many players really felt this way? etc... Here is a hint: sound bites stick. I don't want our new, beautiful, largely donor funded Dal Ward to become known as 'the plantation.' That hurts both recruitment and donations, while SOLVING NOTHING.
Di Stefano's heart is probably in the right place...CU and the Boulder community have always wanted to lead in addressing the most pressing issues of identity politics; whether it be gender, racial or economic inequality. But he needs to think and plan at a tactical level before he talks. He needs to coordinate with RG and MM. He needs to be clear that this perception is an issue across college football. He needs to start executing a plan to address such an issue before he starts talking publicly, and once he does start talking, he needs to sell the exciting plan that makes CU the flagship program for equality within the NCAA. That is how he could help without hurting.
Now he needs to post figures from the NCAA. We are not that different from other schools. This is a broader problem and he is going about it wrong by continuing to post about just CU. He is on a mission to kill our decent sports. Start a broader conversation if you want to affect change. Still an asshat
CitizenKane
Well-Known Member
The headline in the papers are juicy enough to generate their own traffic, though I hope that by some miracle they don't.
I also hope there isn't anyone on Allbuffs who think that Phil isn't intelligent, extremtly well spoken, very calculating and very intentional. He tends to have very noble intentions and aspirations. There are times when those of us that have worked with Phil will tell you all of those traits combine to put Phil in a position where he ignores practical and operational realities that lead to real harm.
In my opinion, Phil's decision to open such a discussion at this time and including language he knew would be inflamatory are a continuation of this pattern. The timing and language have the ability to do real harm to recruiting, to the athletics department and to CU's image just as they are making headway towards restoring all of those items. Having a succesful athletics program and a positive image brings revenue, students and faculty to a University (The three items that make up the life blood of a University). Academics alone are not enough to keep most Universities moving forward (with some very notable exceptions, which CU isn't among). I suspect the language Phil chose to include could lead to black athletes wanting to avoid CU, tarninshing CU's reputation and actually preventing the conversations Phil is trying to start from ever becoming succesful. But I also get why he did it...he knows without really shocking people the conversation isn't likely to ever even start. He is willing to sacrifice the University that employs him for what he sees as a more noble cause.
I would argue that only through education can can the issues he wants to address be overcome and therefore, harming, even in the short term, the success of an institution of higher education, does more harm than good. There were better times and better terminology to use (Just because a 19 year old uses a certain phrase doesn't mean you have to!). Every P5 university in the nation faces the same underlying issues, but Phil is the only administrator around pulling stuff like this.
#FirePhilNow
Should never happened in the first place the way it did. That is on him and his lack of awareness. His is well past his usefulness at CU and needs to fade away from the spotlight.
I guarantee you that the majority of the traffic comes from us. Let these threads die, don't retweet or respond to tweets and it will go away. The comments are Phil's faul......but make no mistake......this becomes a bigger story where outside people talk about it.......that will be on us. I agree about Phil though.
I think he's referring to the reporter/twitterer?
yep
Firing Phil after he comes out and says we need to address these issues would be suicidal.
Maybe the guy is more calculating than we give him credit for. He just bought himself another year of employment. Probably all he needs to max out his PERA benefits.
Maybe the guy is more calculating than we give him credit for. He just bought himself another year of employment. Probably all he needs to max out his PERA benefits.