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!

University of Colorado's Phil DiStefano hesitant on Folsom Field upgrades

Let the meltdown commence

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
Not a big deal. Nothing's final till it's officially announced. And while Bohn wants to build excitement in the donor base, Phil doesn't want a bunch of professors up his ass by making statements like they've already committed to it before finalizing every detail.
 
Of course MB isn't available for comment...when Dr. Phil says jump, he says how high....there is no way the Buffs won't improve since they got rid of the boise idot...but they will have to lose the dead weight form the admin before anything huge happens.
 
Why is distefano talking about this right now. Something doesn't make sense. Are they ready to announce something and want everyone to know money isn't coming from the general fund or did the private funding fall through
 
TDbuff said:
Not a big deal. Nothing's final till it's officially announced. And while Bohn wants to build excitement in the donor base, Phil doesn't want a bunch of professors up his ass by making statements like they've already committed to it before finalizing every detail.
Click to expand...

In this case, it would have been better to just say nothing at all. It makes it looks like business as usual in Boulder-the AD and the academic side are completely separate (at least in perception).
 
Perhaps another nail in the "never to return to dominance" coffin.....
 
C'mon Phil. Say it. "My legacy at CU will not be complete until the Buffs win another national championship in football."
You have 38 years service, Phil. After the whole Hawkins extension thing, your legacy at CU is trending more and more towards being a wet blanket.
 
"Article not found" the link is not working for me.

Jebus I hope he didn't mean the indoor practice facility.
 
articles like this makes me wonder if this team will ever be a top player again. Very little support from the community, and questionable support from the university.
 
Buffnik said:
Daily Camera seems to have removed the article.
Click to expand...

Got it.
[h=1]University of Colorado's Phil DiStefano hesitant on Folsom Field upgrades[/h]CU chancellor expects slower process for changes
By Kyle Ringo Buffzone.com
Posted: 06/22/2012 06:32:55 PM MDT
Updated: 06/22/2012 06:34:03 PM MDT

​
From left to right Andy Barnard from Sink Combs Dethlefs, an architecture company, stands with CU-Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano, CU President Bruce Benson, and CU athletic director Mike Bohn at the groundbreaking event for the new Coors events Center practice facility on March 25, 2010. More than two years later, CU in contemplating upgrades to Folsom Field. ( Stephen Swofford )​

​
Earlier this year, Colorado athletic director Mike Bohn said he would make an announcement in September about "a transformational" facilities project in and around Folsom Field.
Bohn's boss, chancellor Phil DiStefano, said in a recent interview with the Camera that while he believes there is a need for facilities upgrades at Folsom Field, he is taking a more conservative approach to when any announcement about those upgrades might come and what the project will entail.
"We're in the very preliminary stages of taking a look at Folsom and trying to make some sort of decision in the fall about whether or not we should try to move forward on some type of a renovation, but I'm not sure what that would be," DiStefano said.
DiStefano has been at CU as a professor or administrator for 38 years. During much of that time he has worked closely with the athletic department, including serving as faculty athletics representative (2000-2005), and he knows well the challenges the department faces.
During the spring, DiStefano, Bohn and handful of other CU staffers visited the University of Washington to study how that institution is handling a major renovation project at Husky Stadium.
DiStefano said what Washington is doing is fundamentally different from the ideas being floated at CU because Washington is adding suites and club seats, which will provide revenue to pay for the project over time.
CU already has suites and club seats from its last major upgrade at Folsom Field completed in 2003.
DiStefano said unequivocally that any facilities upgrades in athletics will have to be paid for by private funding, increased ticket sales and money the athletic department receives from the Pac-12 television contracts. He said his office will not contribute to athletics facilities projects.
DiStefano said the CU campus and CU System office headed by president Bruce Benson each gave the athletic department $3 million to help offset the $16 million expense of switching from the Big 12 Conference to the Pac-12 last year.
In addition, the campus and the system loaned the athletic department the other $10 million, which will be paid back by 2019.
"We've been helping athletics all along, but for something as significant as a stadium renovation, we do have to look at those other three sources of funding," DiStefano said.
CU is conducting a feasibility study this summer for the project Bohn is proposing.
Bohn acknowledged in the spring that the project will include a permanent indoor practice facility and an underground parking garage. That building would be attached to the Dal Ward Center and Folsom Field on the northeast corner of the stadium, adding a significant amount of space that could be used for classrooms and offices in addition to an expanded weight room.
Bohn also would like to bring athletic department staffers -- except for those dedicated to men's and women's basketball and volleyball -- under one roof in the expanded Dal Ward Center. Currently, the athletic department uses office space in Balch Fieldhouse and at most gates to Folsom Field.
In addition to the practice facility, parking garage and expanding the Dal Ward Center, Bohn's plan would enclose the north end of the stadium, adding several thousand seats and making it possible for fans to walk around the entire stadium on one concourse.
CU football coaches have been sharing the major details of the plan with football recruits making unofficial visits to campus this spring and summer.
There are other aspects to Bohn's plan yet to be revealed that would likely depend on enough funding being available.
Bohn and DiStefano have acknowledged that CU would partially fund the project by borrowing against future Pac-12 television revenue.
CU will begin receiving more than $20 million annually from the conference in the coming school year.
The department could put $125 to $150 million toward the project by borrowing $5 million a year over 25 or 30 years.
CU isn't alone in wanting to make improvements to its football stadium.
Arizona is spending $72 million on a football complex beyond the north end zone of its stadium.
Cal is spending nearly half a billion on renovating its football stadium and adding a complex that will bring most of its athletic department under one roof.
Washington is reportedly spending $250 million on its stadium project and Washington State is spending $80 million on a football complex, football suites and a new press box.
USC recently built the John McKay Center, a football operations center, for $70 million.
Up the road in Fort Collins, new athletic director Jack Graham is proposing a privately funded, on-campus, 40,000-seat stadium at a cost of $250 million, begging the question: If CSU can find the money for a new stadium, why can't CU find enough to refurbish the home of Ralphie's famous Saturday afternoon stampedes?
DiStefano said the prospect of CSU adding a stadium -- a decision will come later this year -- doesn't put pressure on Colorado to do more.
"I don't think what CSU is planning is having an effect on us," DiStefano said. "As I said, we're certainly in the very preliminary stages of taking a look at Folsom Field, and we'll spend this summer kind of talking about possible facility upgrades. We're certainly looking at what our Pac-12 colleagues are doing."
Considering Bohn was so enthusiastic about a September announcement, DiStefano was asked if he and Bohn are on the same page when it comes to getting the project done.
"We have to look at the results of the feasibility study and see where donors line up," DiStefano said. "Who knows? We may have something more to talk about in September. I think I'm just being a little bit more conservative than Mike in saying it will probably take us some time during the fall to make that decision."
Bohn was unavailable to comment.



 
I fully realize that just about everyone was in favor of the move to the Pac but I saw it more as a move as running from a conference where many of the schools were serious about their respective football programs. :huh:
 
CarolinaBuff said:
I fully realize that just about everyone was in favor of the move to the Pac but I saw it more as a move as running from a conference where many of the schools were serious about their respective football programs. :huh:
Click to expand...

Given the large commitments by schools like Arizona, Cal, Washington, and Wazzu to their stadiums, along with the big money thrown around by USC and Oregon, it is not like you can just skate by in the PAC-12.
 
Duff Man said:
Given the large commitments by schools like Arizona, Cal, Washington, and Wazzu to their stadiums, along with the big money thrown around by USC and Oregon, it is not like you can just skate by in the PAC-12.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but it's not like the commitments that UT, OU, and OSU make to football.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Fair enough, but it's not like the commitments that UT, OU, and OSU make to football.
Click to expand...

UT, OU, and OSU are the outliers though. That is not a fair standard for 90% of the schools in college football.

I get your overall point though. I do not think anyone disagrees that it is time for CU to step up to the big boy table.
 
Its plain disingenuous to say that CU is in "very preliminary stages of taking a look at Folsom..."

Plans to upgrade have been kicked around since 2000. CU has had plenty of time and motivation to evaluate expansions during the Big 12 era.

We should be evaluating our opinions on the performance of the chancellor between 2005 and 2012.
Is CU Boulder better off now than it was in 2000?
 
Skidmark said:
Its plain disingenuous to say that CU is in "very preliminary stages of taking a look at Folsom..."

Plans to upgrade have been kicked around since 2000. CU has had plenty of time and motivation to evaluate expansions during the Big 12 era.

We should be evaluating our opinions on the performance of the chancellor between 2005 and 2012.
Is CU Boulder better off now than it was in 2000?
Click to expand...

The campus improvements, especially in the face of eroding state funding, are very visible and worth touting. I find it hard to give DiStephano much grief in that area. His role with the athletic department is a different story.
 
To me it sounds like typical DeStephano, say something without saying anything. Phil will say what he has to in order to not have to answer any tough questions from the press, the politicians, the faculty, etc.

Honestly I don't think this changes anything. When the plan is in place and the money plan is in place you can be assured that Phil will be front and center trying to bask in the glory of the work of others.
 
Duff Man said:
The campus improvements, especially in the face of eroding state funding, are very visible and worth touting. I find it hard to give DiStephano much grief in that area. His role with the athletic department is a different story.
Click to expand...

The C in CU also stands for Construction. There has been lot of campus improvements. But....
Have those buildings helped improve the rankings of the university?
Is CU more or less prestigious now than it was in the 1970s or 1990s?

CU made it's mark jumping all over NASA and space exploration through a fine aerospace program. The astronaut alumni have been a crown jewel amongst alumni. Too bad the space program and NASA isn't as high profile as it was during the cold war.

CU scores some points for Molecular Biology and Chemistry.

But CU has largely missed the boat on some of the biggest cash cows of the last 20 years.
Homeland Security ---- Nope
Genome Research ---- Nope
Computer Software ---- There's better
Petroleum & Energy --- no oil. no gas. Wind farming and solar haven't exactly taken off
Manufacturing, tourism, hospitality --- not really.
Has the Business School been among the top 25 in the nation. Nope.

CU has spent its treasure on building the medical center in Denver. The leadership has been engaged in a perpetual struggle with Capital Hill to keep state funds from drying up faster.
This is not a school that has been taking risks, and positioning itself to climb up in stature.

Boulder has been on autopilot. While the building construction is great, I'm not sure exactly how that corresponds to the value of the degree.

There's no doubt that the college experience in Boulder is unmatched due to the lifestyle that living in Boulder affords. The campus still looks beautiful as ever.

But if you are not evolving in this global economy, then your are getting left behind.
 
Some good points, but I do not think you can underestimate the effect of the scandal though. That more than anything left a lasting stain on the CU brand for several years. Hard to take risks when you are getting raked through the coals for the better part of 2-3 years by the national media. The problem is the snakebit mentality that formed during those years has not subsided in some ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top