Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Darth Snow, Feb 8, 2010.
If there was only some sort of highly visible extra-curricular exhibition involving students and the community that would draw the interest of alumnus and keep them engaged with our University, perhaps drawing more donations to the institution to help augment shortfalls. Something like that might even help galvanize the state behind its flagship university.
I can't think of anything off of the top of my head, but maybe somebody else has an idea?
Bring back Men's tennis!!!
I was being sarcastic when I said I didn't have any ideas. Bringing back men's tennis is exactly what I had in mind.
420 on the quad?
In all seriousness though we should just give up with the state funding crap, its 4% of our income and most of our head-ache.
First step probably should be removing the football and basketball programs. First, to convert Folsom into an outdoor tennis arena. Second, so the CEC can be converted for womens hockey.
We'd be the Wimbledon of the Rockies!
I don't get the connection of "low state funding = going independent." Doesnt' athletics pretty much fund itself?
They are talking about taking the whole school private (independent in the lexicon above) and getting rid of state funding so that in theory we could more efficiently run the school.
If CU were to go private, it would free up funds for the rest of the state institutions. I think it would be a win/win for everybody involved.
This would be an interesting transformation, to say the least. It would take incredible vision and leadership - two things I believe are sorely lacking at the University of Colorado right now.
It's an interesting thought that seems to come up a lot but there are parts of it that I don't get. The assets of the University belong to the state, right? So it's not just a matter of giving up 5% of the funding. Whatever private entity was set up would need to compensate the state for all of the assets. That's the part I don't see happening.
So why did we keep Hawkins? I thought a 3 mill buyout would hurt our funding. What ****ing funding? Sorry to bring up Hawk in a non-related Hawk post but we were fed some serious bull****. ****!
Are there any recent examples for public schools going private?
Yeah, way to go Bruce...that keep Hawk strategy worked out well at funding time.
This is state funding for the university as a whole (which is piss poor). However, there is nothing specific as to how much of the Athletic Department's budget is comprised of state funding. That is where I believe keeping Hawk made a difference.
We kept Hawk becuase of the backlash that would have ensued if we canned him and paid him out, look at what Cal is going through with thier stadium remodel 321 of purely private money and every 2 bit politician and pundit is berating them for wasteful spending in a time of economic hardship.
0% of state funding goes to the AD
True, let me rephrase. How much of the AD's budget comes from the University... which receives state funding.
that I think varies by year, in good years nothing, but in bad years the University has "loaned" the AD money.
i think the answer is basically zero percent.
the CUAD is supposed to be self-funding through ticket sales, donations, and tv revenue and the rest. they had to borrow money to get through the gb termination and the club seat thing, but i think most of that money is being paid back (or has already) with interest. and, i am not sure even that loaned money came from the university. if it came from the CU Fund, then the link to any taxpayer money at all is even more tenuous.
i am not sure... i am just spitballin' here.
What is sort of funny is that lots of people bitched that firing Hawkins would create a political backlash and could cost CU millions.
So CU kept Hawkins, and the state is still basically saying "F you" to CU.
I don't remember anyone bitching about it, but many of us knew the political reality of the situation.
My only issue with CU going private is what would happen to in-state tuition? Some of us went to CU because it was "affordable".
My only options were in-state public schools: CU, CSU, and UNC as my safety. Had CU been private in 1989, with attendant $25,000/year tuition, I would be a Ram right now, praising the virtues of Sonny Lubick and Bradleeeeee Van Mullet.:ahhhhh::scared2:
I heard (can't remember where - probably on Allbuffs) that one plan for going private would include "in-state" tuition as part of the purchase price. The Foundation (which would be the buyer) would agree to charge in-staters less for a lower price.
I thought that was a pretty clever idea.
tuition will go through the roof... like any other private school. there has been talk of having some kind of an endowment whereby in-state students might get their tuition reduced... but, i don't know how that would work...
this would be a difficult issue to deal with... CU is already disconnected from the hearts/minds of many residents. if a lot of in-state kids are priced out, this disconnection could get worse. and, this whole thing would make csu the defacto flagship state school. that could be bad for CU, too.
To my knowledge, it has never been done anywhere else. However, I do know that there are other schools (Michigan, Cal, Florida) that are having some similar issues to what we're experiencing and have started looking for alternatives, just as we are.
What good is being the flagship university if you can't hire decent professors? The disconnect thing is real, but unavoidable, IMO. CU is caught between a rock and a hard place on this. Either go private and survive with a diminished reputation in the state, or stay public and die a slow, arduous death.
At the end of the day, the biggest obstacle to this entire idea lies in the way CU is structured. The Regents are elected representatives. How can an elected representative advocate the separation of the entity he's elected to oversee from the entity that elected him? The only way to do it, IMO, would be to separate CU-Boulder from the rest of the CU system, keeping UCCS, and UCD as the state schools, while CU-Boulder is a private institution. I believe the Regents could elect to divest the CU-Boulder campus.
Does Naropa have a Football team?
let's say CU finds a way to become quasi-private. there are lots of thorny issues.
look at the private and other money that has gone into the med center in denver. would that be CU's or the state's after the privatization?
what happens to the law school? public or private? what about the satellite campuses? you suggest that ucd and uccs would stay public but how would that even work?
and, what happens if somehow the economy recovers and the taxpayer coffers open again? then what? with state money flowing, a privatized CU would be at the end of the line for money, not the front.
i think it would require a great deal of creativity to make privatization work. paying for all the state-owned property is just one of a zillion challenges.
i think we ought to focus on smaller goals... for example, given the lack of state funding, the state should lose its direct oversight of the school. more independence from the political process would be a big help to CU. also, benson and the others have been working to try to stop "mission-creep"... this is very important for CU too. with limited dollars available, the state needs to do a better job of allocating the money in non-duplicative ways. every state school that has its hand out needs to stay in its box, mission-wise. if this effort succeeds, CU will benefit greatly because we already have all the glamor stuff like the med school, law school, etc. csu can focus on aggie stuff and the like. and, western state and the similar state schools can focus on being good little regional schools rather than every school trying to be everything to everyone.
just some thoughts...
I think this move would be a disaster for CU. Hugely bad idea. Don't make a permanent move over a temporary situation. This would just make "Boulder University" even more remote in the minds of Coloradans.
There's got to be a better solution than that.
Separate names with a comma.