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!

Great insight from the Rivals board Re: CU Administration & CU Athletics

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
There is a very informative thread on the Rivals board that I was given permission from the Rivals BuffStampede administration to copy over here.

So here's some premium content for everyone. Great read and insight into the situation at CU, imo. Well worth the time it will take to read this and digest it.

BuffPredictor opened the thread with the declaration that "Hawkins just a symptom of a larger issue - Benson, the Regents".
the main point is that there needs to be more support from the administration in the way of
1) admissions
2) assistant retention and
3) facilities if we want to get back to being like it was back in the late 80s-early 90s.

SDBuff followed with the following:
Truly believe they get it. I know plenty will argue based on last November, and I agree. But with the move to the PAC 10 and hearing from Scott, et al. how important it is to have competitive athletic programs- if the light wasn't on before, believe it is now.
_______________________________
Originally posted by Buff Predictor:
1) admissions

_______________________________

Our admissions department has allowed more "High Risk" student athletes under Hawkins than at anytime in the last 20 years. Admissions for HS is not a problem as long as they are cleared through the NCAA clearinghouse.

This led to the big scoop from LongtimeBuff:
I appreciate the sentiment of your post BP. The thing is as far as I can tell is the University as a whole has had a tough row to hoe. What Benson did, on the surface, seems to be totally anti sports and anti football. However, if you keep the bigger picture in perspective I think he made the right decision, as painful as it was for us football fans.

Last year I sent Dr. D a letter, which in-turn netted me an hour long one-on-one meeting in the chancellors office. The content of my letter focused on the troubles the university faces from a financial perspective, and how athletics fits in to the puzzle in ensuring that CU is a great, well-rounded institution. The meeting helped me to realize that the university was on the verge of serious financial jeopardy unless the admin could find a way to get the legislature to relax requirements that restricted the university's ability to raise revenue. Make no mistake that paying the coach a $3 million buyout while also going to the legislature with hands out would have killed any of the initiatives that were in the works and the university as a whole would have suffered greatly. There would have been problems so serious that the football team, and the AD as a whole would have been back-burnered for a long, long time.

In essence, what I am saying is what the admin did has actually allowed us an opportunity going forward to dedicate significant resources and opportunity to athletics.

In response, LeftHandBuff (who also has some inside info), wrote the following:
Longtime, thanks very much for posting this. This, above all else pains me to no end. What this all comes down to, is that CU ended up with one of its worst coaches in recent history at the worst possible time. SD brought up the conference movement as well which was a huge factor.

The problem is, no one believes this or cares. They call DiStefano/Benson "weak" and "spineless" for not pulling the trigger. But as Longtime learned via his meeting, the financial issues at CU run deep. In one year, CU was facing "restructuring" departments and colleges (Journalism), laying off staff and key personnel and pushing key legislation through the state to unshackle CU, allowing it to make ends meet particularly in a economic recession. This move was POLITICAL. It was not financial.

Benson and DiStefano know full well the value of athletics within the university setting. They have fielded all the calls and emails reminding them of that. Their work to secure our place in the Pac 12 should be evidence enough. The rumored support of the AD going forward is another indication as is the discussion of adding sports to the portfolio. The CU Foundation is tired of calling for donations only to talk about a football coach. Everyone gets it. Fans, boosters, donors, supporters, the AD, everyone has been asked to grin and bear it. It sucks - no doubt about it, but we're a mere 6 weeks away from the end. We're almost there.

And then this follow-up from LeftHandBuff:
First, the key legislation that passed recently involves (1) reduced oversight and approval from the state on capital projects and purchasing (prior to this, the state literally had to approve EVERYTHING - even if they weren't paying for ANYTHING), (2) Allowing foreign students to *not* count against the "out-of-state" limits (allowing CU to diversify AND bring in more out-of-state $$$), (3) Allow CU to raise tuition up to 9% without approval. Ritter was (fortunately) very supportive of these measures and as you can imagine, some of them were highly contentious. The state of CO has always had a love-hate with Higher Ed. They want a say in everything CU, CSU or any other Colorado University does without investing much of anything (lowest support in the country - BELOW Mississippi). It was a HUGE victory for CU to have this legislation passed - they wanted nothing to get in their way - so much so that they were willing to throw away an entire football season. CU now has the ability to conduct its business without the state poking their nose in just about everything...

Second, the major financial restructuring (deemed, "deep and narrow" - meaning the elimination of programs, staff, etc) has been ongoing. Journalism is more or less eliminated (not gone, but absorbed into Communications), many staff were fired and a lot of 'encouraged' retirements. Campus raises and hiring of any kind have been essentially frozen for 2+ years, faculty have been asked to teach more, reducing the need for instructors to teach (and therefore letting them go).

As far as timing - these are all things that have happened. We're through what many think is the worst of it. Economic news isn't getting any better, but CU NOW feels as though it will be able to react to the further cuts to higher education coming down next fiscal year. All in all, it was deemed too great a political risk to fire Hawk and THEN try to accomplish all of the aforementioned legislation and restructuring.

Now, in Hawk's 5th year, it's even THAT much more apparent that Hawk isn't getting it done. The legislation is in the books. The financial restructuring is done and/or been announced. Staff/personnel have been fired. We're joining the Pac 10 next year with known revenue hit. Now is the time to fire Hawk. Everyone is on board.

And, finally, this from LeftHandBuff:
as you can imagine, this stuff can't really be broadly announced. CU can't come out and say "we can't afford to fire Hawk", nor can it say, "this is not the right time to fire Hawk". The outside media view is going to be what it is - people didn't think we could "afford" to leave the Big 12 and well, I can tell you that CU was prepared to give up $14M to get out of that league. AND, let's be clear - if CU didn't "care" about athletics, it wouldn't have spent time, money and effort on ensuring that CU ended up in the Pac 10. Benson, DiStefano, Bohn and even faculty like Tom Cech (Nobel in biochem) were part of the process.

I can affirm that the University is in a much stronger place now than it was one year ago. Again, this is not about more money in the bank today, but the flexibility we now have coupled with the efficiencies implemented this past year will be of great benefit to the entire University, including the AD. Tough year, I know, but we are so close now...

Thoughts?
 
Im starting to believe more and more bringing back Mac is the safest call right now. We cant afford to give another 4 or 5 year contract to likes of Calhon. With Mac you know he would step down if he isnt getting the job done like that fraud/thief Hawkins.
 
Fascinating read and it makes a lot of sense. It sounds like CU did what it had to to survive down the line. Almost line pruning a tree, we had to lop off the dead branches to allow the rest of it to grow.

I think a decade from now we'll all like how everything turned out.
 
Well, I had something all ready to go but the site timed out on me. Too lazy to write it all again.
Anyway, very enlightening, and definitely helps to see things from a different perspective as to what the upper echelon of administration had to deal with. Seen similar stuff/maneuvering like this happen all throughout my career.

Looks like brighter days are ahead. Thanks for th epost 'Nik and working to get the permission to post it here. Rep coming.
 
The proof will be in the pudding, if CU comes to the table with the promised support of the AD I'll full forgive this season.
 
That Rivals content strikes a chord with me. Observing CU from my end of the telescope leads me to believe some tough choices were being made.

I've not understood why CU football had to languish over the past 5 years, which is on the hands of DiStephano more than Bohn or Benson. Prior to the conference re-allignment, it appeared that CU hit rock bottom. Now it looks like the hole is really big, but atleast there is a positive path forward.

I'm not sure how to evaluate Benson's performance. This rival's post is the first I've seen on message boards that so clearly declares a Benson victory in the 2009-2010 legislative season. It's too early for me to tell if the politics behind not pulling the trigger on a $3M buy-out last November was indeed a shrewd move, or an excuse. Is the CUAD self supporting, or isn't it?

Have some of the state's chains really been lifted from CU? Is Keisau's contract evidence of that? Can anyone tie Richardson or Patterson to some new era of Academic-AD relations? Is Benson's legislative work tied to the Pac-12 move in any way? Does Bruce Benson really want to channel Gordon Gee? What other evidence do we have that shows Benson took some big risks in the short term in order to reap long term benefits?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great Post! Some very insightful information that offers a different perspective to the entire situation. I agree with absinthe. Moving forward, if the CU administration honors their commitment to the AD then it will be easier to forgive not just this year, but the Hawk era...
 
Thanks for the insight. Glads to hear this has been going on behind the scenes.

I wonder how and if props 60, 61, 100? Will trickle down to affecting the University on top of the perenniel TABOR affects. I know CU can never go private, but is sure seems like it's getting closer.

Good to hear, but ongoing worries ahead.
 
Im starting to believe more and more bringing back Mac is the safest call right now. We cant afford to give another 4 or 5 year contract to likes of Calhon. With Mac you know he would step down if he isnt getting the job done like that fraud/thief Hawkins.

+1 Positive news Nik and it gives me hope. I am still not sure why we have to wait six weeks, but whatever.
 
In short, the future is brighter, as long as we don't miss big again on the new hire. That is why bringing back Mac in the short term makes sense, because it will provide an immediate boost where we need it, yet no one will have the illusion that it is the long term answer.
 
Benson was just getting ripped apart on the message boards. Everyone knew his nixing the Hawkins firing was political but most seemed to think it was just a bunch of political BS and that Benson didn't give a crap about athletics. I work in a political environment. You cannot state enough about how important it is to avoid even the appearance of mismanagement. It looks like Benson was very astute in how he handled the situation. It was wise, if he was going to err, to err on the side of hurting the program for one more year as opposed to hurting the program for years to come.
 
Good insight Buffnik, thanks for reposting. I'll admit I was one of the ones ripping Benson & DiStephano last year, as their decisions seemed entirely weak and shortsided. Proof will be in the pudding as to how much of this is true and if/how things change between the AD & the school for support. If things really do change, props to the administration for making it happen.
 
Does that mean CU will be able to get a real indoor practice facility within five years? Would this truly help with expanding Folsom Field in the future?
 
Great read Nik. Thanks. Amazingly, we were fairly close on what happened through our speculation last year. Where we fell short (if true) is the long-term benefits we may realize. Instead of "just politics", it may have been "visionary politics".

Thanks again. And apologies for repeating almost exactly what DBT already posted.
 
Seems to be pretty much in line with what most of us were saying all along. We were still bitter about it. Still are, actually. But our perspective is much different than theirs. We see things through the lens of what happens on Saturday afternoons in the Fall. They have to take a much wider view of the issue.
 
Great read Nik. Thanks. Amazingly, we were fairly close on what happened through our speculation last year. Where we fell short (if true) is the long-term benefits we may realize. Instead of "just politics", it may have been "visionary politics".

Thanks again. And apologies for repeating almost exactly what DBT already posted.

does anybody read his posts???? :smile2:
 
So we were all blaming Benson last year.... i am confused... whose fault is it now that we suck? is it still Hawks fault? :smile2:
 
Thanks Nik. Pretty in line with what we all heard and nice to read it confirmed by some well placed folks. It is coming to an end quickly and Hawk will be gone. He may not see it in his deliusional world but the axe is raised and his head is on the block.
 
I want specific examples from passed bills. However, it would be nice if CU could begin the "cal" approach.
 
This is what I thought was happening at the time. I still think that the politics is having an influence. Part of that is that I don't see Hawk being relieved of his duties before the election. Even this close to election day a $2 million dollar payout, even if it all comes from donors, would still become a political football (excuse the pun) with the current condition of the state budget. I am sure that Benson can easily see a reporter asking a candidate about the money and the candidate, not knowing anything about what he/she is saying spouting some crap about budget priorities then feeling like he/she has to stick with that after the election. Better just let it pass and do what has to be done in a more rational environment.
 
IMO it would be extremely irresponsible of CU's leadership to risk the health of the entire university on one year of the football team's success. If these remarks are true, then Benson made the right call. We all love sports, but the health of CU as an institution is much more important.
 
IMO it would be extremely irresponsible of CU's leadership to risk the health of the entire university on one year of the football team's success. If these remarks are true, then Benson made the right call. We all love sports, but the health of CU as an institution is much more important.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:





Oh wait? You were serious.
 
Is this the bill that was passed?

From June 2010 Message from the President

2010 Legislative Session The Colorado General Assembly wrapped up about a month ago, and it was a successful one for CU, with the rather large caveat that state funding for higher education continues to head south. The Legislature could not provide us any more funding, and in fact cut our appropriation by $50 million (which was backfilled by stimulus funds; that temporary relief will go away next year). But the Legislature did help us by passing Senate Bill 3, the higher education flexibility bill, which Gov. Bill Ritter is expected to sign this week.
The bill doesn't solve our funding woes, but it does give us the ability to be more efficient and effective in our operations. It also allows us to attract more international students, who will no longer count against statutory caps on our resident/non-resident student mix. Our Boulder campus, with 4 percent international students, ranks second to last among the prestigious Association of American Universities (of which we are a member). Enrolling more international students would not displace Coloradans. All qualified resident students would still be admitted. Casting a global net for students will broaden our reach as an international university and enhance the diversity of the campus experience.
Another important facet of the flexibility legislation is allowing the university to operate under fiscal rules specific to higher education, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach of the state fiscal rules. The move will allow us to be more entrepreneurial, take better advantage of our buying power and untangle the red tape that often inhibits efficiency. However, it won't come at the expense of accountability. We will still have legislative and internal audits, federal grant compliance and oversight from our elected Board of Regents.
Perhaps the most discussed aspect of flexibility legislation has been tuition flexibility. Higher education governing boards will have the ability to set tuition for their institutions (up to 9 percent; to exceed that, we need to submit a plan to the state). While some worry the move would lead to unchecked tuition increases, I don't see that happening. We understand our market, and we will not price ourselves out of it. Additionally, we have oversight from a Board of Regents elected by the people of the state, and the board is a substantial check and balance on the cost of a CU education.
We had other pieces of legislation pass this session that will help the university. Noteworthy is Senate Bill 58, a loan forgiveness bill that will help us increase the number of nursing faculty, which is a key part of expanding our nursing work force.
We appreciate the efforts of our elected officials to support higher education. While underfunding is a constant problem, our governor and legislators fully understand and support the role our colleges and universities, particularly research universities, play in Colorado's economic health and quality of life.


https://www.cusys.edu/presnews/2010/06/
 
I have a couple of things I can say. First, thanks to those who have provided the information above, Buffnik, SDBuff, LongtimeBuff and lefthandbuff. My background is that I am a CU graduate who was low man on the totem pole on Eddie Crowder's 1971 team. Eddie was very good to me back then and later in our lives when we were reconnected several years before he passed away. I have been in academics at medical and dental schools as well as P.A. and P.T. programs for over 30 years while teaching human gross anatomy to these students.
Over the course of the past year I have sent several letters and emails to Mike Bohn, Bruce Benson and Philip DiStefano. While I certainly was not pleased with what happened last year, it is apparent that it likely had to happen that way for the long term health of the university, football program and athletics. I suspect that the administrators were not happy when they HAD to make the decision they did last year regarding the head coach position of the football team. I absolutely hate to see what is going on with the once proud Colorado football team. I believe that the administrators know full well that the football team needs to join the Pac 12 with a fresh start and they will see to it that it happens. The move to the Pac 12 is important to the university for both athletics and academics. The administrators did a fine job in getting this accomplished. While I am an old Big 8 guy, it came to be that the Big 12 was taken over by Texas and other members virtually had no voice in anything. The Big 8 wasn't coming back and the best move was the Pac 12 for both athletics and academics together.
I can say that Mike Bohn and Bruce Benson have been very respectful and courteous in responding to my letters and emails. I always respected Mike Bohn and what he does for the Colorado athletic department. He always takes the time to reply. My respect for Bruce Benson has really gone up. I never expected him to personally reply to my inquiries, but the fact that he has taken the time to do so has impressed me. DiStefano on the other hand has never bothered to reply. I don't need to say what I think of him when I compare his total snub to the courteous personal replies from the president and athletic director.
I can't go into any specifics, but I believe the extreme frustration, anxiety and misery will soon be over. I don't have this from any specific inside information, but I if I read things right, I believe the Colorado football program will be joining the Pac 12 with a fresh start. I think a reasonable move will be for Coach Mac to take over the program, bring in a staff and then turn the program over to the assistant who does the best to emerge as a head coach after a few years. Just a few more weeks and I think the misery ends. All along I have felt bad for the fellow Buffs who work have worked as hard as they can over the past 5 seasons.
 
This explains a lot! Maybe Alfred was let in on this whole deal a few weeks ago. I love the guy but he seriously called the dogs off over the past month or so. I bet when he got his "day" up there they sat down and talked about this exact thing.

I hope this is true, and if so, we have the ship on a course that at least isn't in the complete wrong direction.
 
I can't go into any specifics, but I believe the extreme frustration, anxiety and misery will soon be over. I don't have this from any specific inside information, but I if I read things right, I believe the Colorado football program will be joining the Pac 12 with a fresh start. I think a reasonable move will be for Coach Mac to take over the program, bring in a staff and then turn the program over to the assistant who does the best to emerge as a head coach after a few years. Just a few more weeks and I think the misery ends. All along I have felt bad for the fellow Buffs who work have worked as hard as they can over the past 5 seasons.

This is why I would love for Mac to come back and have EB on staff somewhere, maybe as Asst. HC or OC.
 
Back
Top