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!

Ringo: Not all fans are upset CU might have to join MWC

You are far too rational to be a Lammie... :smile2:

I find it entertaining that you seem to favor CU going to the Pac-16 more than some CU fans do... :lol:

That entire CU atheletic department should be canned if they walked away from 20 million guaranteed in the PAC-16. That to me is an absolute no brainer.

Selfishly, I would prefer CU in the MWC because I think it would be good for CSU and the conference. However it shakes out though...Baylor would be a nice consolation prize for the MWC as would an addition of Boise State.
 
Obviously we are all pretty powerless in this entire thing. I think the only thing that those of us without 6 figure donations can do is to continue to post negative comments on the MWC idea and promote the Pac 10 or Big XII when these types of articles show up. At least it will show that the media is not the voice of the CU fans
 
Who are all these mysterious CU "fans" that supposedly want to move to the MWC? I've not seen that anywhere. I've seen a lot of "well, if all else fails, this situation wouldn't be the end of the world" stuff. Nobody, to my knowledge, is advocating a move to the MWC when there are other options available to us.
 
You obviously mistaken me for someone else. I have never been in favor of the Pac-10. The Big 12 was much more upside than the PAC 10. CU right now runs about 5th or 6th in revenues in the Conference from Football....to say they don't have any donations is incorrect - but donations will drop in half in the MWC.

I am sorry, I just don't believe CU has the level of donations needed to pay for a premier football program. Otherwise, the donors would have stepped up to the plate and gotten Hawkins out the door LAST YEAR. We are only talking about $3 or $4 million dollars here.

Look around the Big 12 conference. Kansas wanted to fire Mangino -- FIRED (with 3 years left on his contract at $2.3 mil per year). Tech wanted to fire Leach -- FIRED (with 4 years left on his contract at $2.5 mil per year). Nebraska wanted to fire Callahan -- FIRED (with 4 years left on his contract). A&M wanted to fire Franchione -- FIRED (with 5 years left on his contract).
 
I am sorry, I just don't believe CU has the level of donations needed to pay for a premier football program. Otherwise, the donors would have stepped up to the plate and gotten Hawkins out the door LAST YEAR. We are only talking about $3 or $4 million dollars here.

Of course, there are still all the reports that the donors did come forward with the money, but the administration decided to keep Hawk anyway, because he talked a good line of bull**** and spending the money would look bad politically...
 
I am sorry, I just don't believe CU has the level of donations needed to pay for a premier football program. Otherwise, the donors would have stepped up to the plate and gotten Hawkins out the door LAST YEAR. We are only talking about $3 or $4 million dollars here.

Look around the Big 12 conference. Kansas wanted to fire Mangino -- FIRED (with 3 years left on his contract at $2.3 mil per year). Tech wanted to fire Leach -- FIRED (with 4 years left on his contract at $2.5 mil per year). Nebraska wanted to fire Callahan -- FIRED (with 4 years left on his contract). A&M wanted to fire Franchione -- FIRED (with 5 years left on his contract).

Donors did step up to the plate. The real problem is CU lacks leadership from Benson to DiStephano to Bohn to Hawkins. The problem is not the donors. Mike Bohn is the classical lets find out which way the wind is blowing AD, the guy lacks any original thought of his own. But to give in credit he works hard at fund raising and tries to engage the fan base, but he fails at the other parts of his job.
 
Of course, there are still all the reports that the donors did come forward with the money, but the administration decided to keep Hawk anyway, because he talked a good line of bull**** and spending the money would look bad politically...


I understand that's the "story." I saw plenty of stories that the money was there, that Bohn had made the decision, and at the last minute the President came in and said "no can do."

Would the donors at Texas have let that happen? How about the donors at OU? Nebraska?
 
If I were a Buff's fan I would be sick an tired of dealing with a Texas program that has no interest in the success or failure of the CU program (or any program for that matter) so long as they get their inequitably payout.

As a Buff fan, I am not really sick and tired dealing with Texas. It's not the fault of Texas that they play to win, and have the ability to achieve excellence.

I'm more sick and tired by the signal from CU and the Colorado voters who are not "in it to win it". Doing a half-assed effort in the pursuit of mediocracy is not an admirable value. It's not the fault of Texas that CU can't punch itself out of a paper bag. It's not the fault of Texas that the Colorado media and majority of Coloradoans choose to ignore or smear CU.

If you've seen CU beat UT in Texas Stadium, or have watched CU beat NU in Lincoln and go on to a National Championship, you'd understand. This whole concept of settling for irrelevance and mediocraty isn't going to cut it.

CU should be a source of community pride, and a beacon that shines tall amongst the top 25 programs in the land. This CU alum is not and never will never be satisfied with a bit part in an also-ran regional conference made up of teams that were picked over and left behind.

My frustration is that Okie Lite, TT, and Baylor are stepping up, while CU and the Denver media are pussing out. I don't get how Washington State, Vanderbuilt, Mississippi State, Indiana, and a dozen other schools are deemed more worthy of big boy football prestige than CU.

None of that is on Texas. That's all on CU and Colorado.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand that's the "story." I saw plenty of stories that the money was there, that Bohn had made the decision, and at the last minute the President came in and said "no can do."

Would the donors at Texas have let that happen? How about the donors at OU? Nebraska?

So what you want is an atmosphere where athletic donors run the school??

You're probably in the right place, then....
 
So what you want is an atmosphere where athletic donors run the school??

You're probably in the right place, then....


I don't believe I ever said that.

But I don't think the donors at OU, Texas, Nebraska, etc. would allow someone to step in and override the AD's decision, especially if the money was already there.
 
I don't believe I ever said that.

But I don't think the donors at OU, Texas, Nebraska, etc. would allow someone to step in and override the AD's decision, especially if the money was already there.

I think the problem in Colorado is that we have so many transplants involved in state government our donors don't have the same legislative muscle.
 
I don't believe I ever said that.

But I don't think the donors at OU, Texas, Nebraska, etc. would allow someone to step in and override the AD's decision, especially if the money was already there.

So you are upset because CU didn't spend the buyout money for Hawkins, and you bring up the fact that at UT, OU or UNL the donors wouldn't let the administration make that decision. And now you bring it up again. I'm not seeing how you're not favoring letting the donors run the school - unless you're saying you think CU's way is better. And I think we all know that's not what you're saying...
 
I just had a thought.

I'll likely live in San Diego in the near future. The thought of attending conference games at SDSU to watch CU play actually makes me want to cry. Does Bohn still have a soft spot for the MWC??
 
Donors did step up to the plate. The real problem is CU lacks leadership from Benson to DiStephano to Bohn to Hawkins. The problem is not the donors. Mike Bohn is the classical lets find out which way the wind is blowing AD, the guy lacks any original thought of his own. But to give in credit he works hard at fund raising and tries to engage the fan base, but he fails at the other parts of his job.

I said it last December. If I were MB, I'd have resigned IF, he was truly denutted by Benson over firing Hawk. MB does do a great job glad handing, going on radio and fund raising. But you are right, he does use the windsock method of decision making. I want a new HC, but I'm not sure I want MB picking him.
 
So you are upset because CU didn't spend the buyout money for Hawkins, and you bring up the fact that at UT, OU or UNL the donors wouldn't let the administration make that decision. And now you bring it up again. I'm not seeing how you're not favoring letting the donors run the school - unless you're saying you think CU's way is better. And I think we all know that's not what you're saying...

Junc, you are about ot argue with the guy who defended GM's "We paid the government back" ad campaign, just sayin'...
 
I don't believe I ever said that.

But I don't think the donors at OU, Texas, Nebraska, etc. would allow someone to step in and override the AD's decision, especially if the money was already there.

You do realize that the "someone" you're referring to is the AD's boss and the one who signs his paycheck right?

Blame Benson if you want, but blaming the donors who put the money up is completely ridiculous.
 
You do realize that the "someone" you're referring to is the AD's boss and the one who signs his paycheck right?

Blame Benson if you want, but blaming the donors who put the money up is completely ridiculous.

You mean the President of the University is supposed to have more power than the AD or the donors???? Where would you get a silly idea like that???? :wow:
 
CU will be back again regardless of what conference we are in. We have a proud history that has seen pockets of success and failure, that trend will continue. The pocket of failure will continue as long as the current regime is here, however a good coach and more money in the Pac is a good start on catching up again. Don't be a dumb ass.

The idea that CU will suck as bad as it currently does for eternity is absurd. We suck because our head coach is a bumbling moron. Eventually, we'll get a decent coach and we'll be back in the mix of things. That's the way it works in college football.

I don't think the current regime is committed to winning if it compromises academics. The taint of the scandal is still there. As long as these guys run the school we will not likely field anything close to a championship club again.

If you think back to the Billy Mac days you'll take note that Gordon Gee was President and he was committed to athletics. Just like at Ohio State too.
 
I don't think the current regime is committed to winning if it compromises academics. The taint of the scandal is still there. As long as these guys run the school we will not likely field anything close to a championship club again.

If you think back to the Billy Mac days you'll take note that Gordon Gee was President and he was committed to athletics. Just like at Ohio State too.

Benson is 70 years old. He's not going to be around for more than another 2-3 years, max. Lets see who the next CU president is.
 
Back
Top