One thing is for damned sure. Colorado is a political lightweight. In polotics, we are still a bunch of yahoos in the mountains.Don't forget... The love guv!
I'm sure our old friend Bill Owens would be glad to help us out:smile2:
One thing is for damned sure. Colorado is a political lightweight. In polotics, we are still a bunch of yahoos in the mountains.Don't forget... The love guv!
I'm sure our old friend Bill Owens would be glad to help us out:smile2:
its times like these i wish i kept my rivals account
There's pretty much nothing there that you haven't read here, and none of it is substantiated.
Here's ol' Chip Brown's latest update. Baylor's now resorted to talking **** about CU apparently...
5 PM UPDATE -According to my sources, powerful Texas lobbyist Buddy Jones, who has deep Baylor ties, and new Baylor president Kenneth Starr, who led the Whitewater investigation against Bill Clinton that unearthed the Monica Lewinsky scandal, are working overtime for BU right now.
Together with a block of 15 legislators, Jones and Starr are actively trying to round up political support from the likes of Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst for Baylor to be included with the other Big 12 schools on the invite list of the Pac-10 over Colorado.
They are making the case Baylor is better than Colorado in every area except media market. They believe Baylor is better than Colorado in these areas:
*Men's programs
*Women's programs
*Equal or better academics
*Less travel for the new member schools that might join the Pac-10
*Newer facilities
*Better financial condition
crickets are chirping here in Colorado...
maybe I'm wrong but Bohn may want to start talking out loud ...
you guys don't know that our guys are not working this. they just aren't talking about it like those damned texans.
you guys don't know that our guys are not working this. they just aren't talking about it like those damned texans.
someone email plati now with a copy of the pro-baylor tweet. there is not a person better qualified in the entire universe to systematically destroy the total BULLFECES contained in those contentions than dave plati. he'll kill them with the facts comparing the 2 schools/programs.
do it now.
Here's ol' Chip Brown's latest update. Baylor's now resorted to talking **** about CU apparently...
5 PM UPDATE -According to my sources, powerful Texas lobbyist Buddy Jones, who has deep Baylor ties, and new Baylor president Kenneth Starr, who led the Whitewater investigation against Bill Clinton that unearthed the Monica Lewinsky scandal, are working overtime for BU right now.
Together with a block of 15 legislators, Jones and Starr are actively trying to round up political support from the likes of Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst for Baylor to be included with the other Big 12 schools on the invite list of the Pac-10 over Colorado.
They are making the case Baylor is better than Colorado in every area except media market. They believe Baylor is better than Colorado in these areas:
*Men's programs
*Women's programs
*Equal or better academics
*Less travel for the new member schools that might join the Pac-10
*Newer facilities
*Better financial condition
There is no slimier person on the planet than kenny starr.
I wilk guarantee that he is much despised by most of the powers that be in the PAC.
you are suggesting that the folks in berkley dont like kenn starr? get outta here!!!! :lol:
I really hope that the cost of keeping dan hawkins doesn't include missing out on this huge opportunity.
Why would it?
you guys don't know that our guys are not working this. they just aren't talking about it like those damned texans.
Why would it?
it demonstrates a lack of commitment to winning from the powers that be in the university. when you have the money to buy out a losing coach after 4 years in your only revenue producing sport and decide not to for political reasons rather than the future benifit of the entire athletic program and the university, it displays a lack of desire to field a competitive athletic program from top to bottom.
that is the way i see it anyway.
it demonstrates a lack of commitment to winning from the powers that be in the university. when you have the money to buy out a losing coach after 4 years in your only revenue producing sport and decide not to for political reasons rather than the future benifit of the entire athletic program and the university, it displays a lack of desire to field a competitive athletic program from top to bottom.
that is the way i see it anyway.
it demonstrates a lack of commitment to winning from the powers that be in the university. when you have the money to buy out a losing coach after 4 years in your only revenue producing sport and decide not to for political reasons rather than the future benifit of the entire athletic program and the university, it displays a lack of desire to field a competitive athletic program from top to bottom.
that is the way i see it anyway.
An extra $10-15m a year changes greatly a school's ability to field a competitive program. This goes to TV money, period.
it demonstrates a lack of commitment to winning from the powers that be in the university. when you have the money to buy out a losing coach after 4 years in your only revenue producing sport and decide not to for political reasons rather than the future benifit of the entire athletic program and the university, it displays a lack of desire to field a competitive athletic program from top to bottom.
that is the way i see it anyway.
Yeah, I hear you but I would hope the collective memories of the powers that be in the Pac 10 extend beyond 4 years. Remeber, this is the same school that paid a $3M buyout to a coach who had just won our division, so there is some history of higher expectations.