Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by NBDefektor, Dec 15, 2009.
it is the interweb man everything goes to extremes.
Bull****. Benson, DiStefano and the Regents all responded to our emails by telling us that it was an Athletic Department issue and would be decided on that level... but thank you for your support of CU. The press was told the same thing. Further, after the fact they have compounded the lie by maintaining they weren't involved and it was all Bohn. They are liars. They got involved where they shouldn't and they know they shouldn't. As you said, they've got other issues that make up their actual job responsibilities. If you want liars, backstabbers, and meddlers running the university, creating the culture on the campuses, and being responsible for setting policies & educating the next generation of Buffs... I'm beyond shocked at what you think is acceptable behavior and leadership.
What are you talking about, Mr. Godwin?:lol:
The Ward Churchill situation is a fascinating comparison.. Looking how long it took CU to fire that asshat, I guess Talkins could be around until 2012.. :sad2:
were you then one of the people that think Clinton should've been impeached because he lied about getting a BJ? Put yourself in the guy's shoes. He is asking the legislature all the time for more money. What would he say when everyone sees on the news how CU fired their coach, paid him $3 million, will have to hire a new coach for about $750,000 per year? So he values the education-side of CU more than the football squad. It's a ****ty situation for everyone, but he's just doing what he thinks is best for the university. I don't know how you can want to fire someone for that. Even if he did send out the mass letter saying it was Bohn's choice. He can't hang Mike out to dry like that and just say that Mike is his very own marionette.
So, i just don't see how choosing education over the football team, and then not making Bohn seem like a puppet constitutes backstabbing, but, hey, that's just me.
Also, I appreciate the neg rep if it was you; feel free to send more. :thumbsup:
I didn't neg rep you. You've got someone else to thank for that. :lol:
And Benson making a point about a costly firing in a time of economic crisis would be totally valid. He could have and should have taken that public. That's exactly what the University of Maryland did. They were open about the fact it was too expensive to fire him.
Strange how at CU, where the current regime is in place because there was a need for people who would bring a policy of "openness" after the scandal, is where the leaders are lying to the public and playing cloak and dagger inside the athletic department.
And on the "backstabbing" label... what would you call it? Bohn was out of town on CU business at the Maui Invitational. (Insert "allegedly" before each statement that follows :wink2 Bohn had already secured private buyout money, been assured that it was his decision, and even reached a settlement number with Hawkins. Benson, who was supposed to be on vacation at this time, made a decision to veto the Hawkins termination and then publicly denied all involvement in or responsibility for the decision.
You would defend it by saying that Benson did Bohn a professional courtesy by making him the scapegoat for a monumentally unpopular decision? Seriously?
If CU would have come out and said it is too expensive to remove Hawkins it would have ended the debate.
There is no way that Bohn made the decision to keep Hawkins without pressure from higher up.
If he did make the decision on his own, and decided to keep Hawkins, Bohn should be fired.
If Benson had any balls he would have told the legislature that the buyout money to terminate Hawkins all came from private donations to the athletic department. The money was specifically donated to terminate Hawkins. CU football has the ability to be a huge revenue generator for the entire college, and a coaching change was needed to even maintain current donation levels.
They couldn't come out and say it was too expensive because they apparently had the money in place to fire him. That would be it's own contradiction.
I ****ing wish. This all would be a lot easier to stomach.
Is public image a part of the President's responsibilty for the whole Universtiy?
Right or wrong, for most D1 schools FB or MBB is the most visible aspect of the University. Athletics is the face of the University. Mishandle that and you are throwing away a great PR tool. Benson screwed this up beyond belief. The whopping $1MM "saved" will be lost several times over by lack of revenue to the AD. Catastrophically stupid decision-making IMO. Nobody likes the idea of buying off an underperforming, overpaid blowhard, but it has to be done. It is pretty much what every other BCS school is doing.
Why do they do it? Most administrators who know their head from a hole in the ground realize a very slim portion of the populace equates a school's reputation with it's academics. Only a handful of institutions are on that level (Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, Dartmouth). Look at Cincinnati, their investment in FB has returned to them many fold. It's simple, people will not have any interest whatsoever in taking time or money out of their schedule to watch/listen to or be involved in a bunch of kids taking their Chemistry final. They will pay premium ticket prices to watch FB. If the former were true, The School of Mines would be the flagship of the state. MAybe that isn't the way things should be, but it is.
Benson and the rest of the admin chose to accentuate the least visible aspect of the University. They could have gone on a PR campaign to show the buyout was privately funded and stressed the AD was largely self-supporting while demonstrating that CU strives for excellence in athletics, academics and community service. The academic types are not going to be able to return the favor the way a packed stadium of people with pockets full of money can.
Instead they behaved like sniveling little politicians deciding who they could sell out at the lowest political cost. Now they are in full CYA mode. That is not leadership in my book, it is acting like a windsock.
Disagree. There was no prevailing wind that he followed here, just Benson's take on what MIGHT happen if we bought Hawk out. He didn't even test the waters, he just stuck his head in the ground. A good politician knows the true costs of a decision, and Benson definitely didn't think this one through. The prevailing wind was to fire Hawk, and Benson went against it. ****ing stupid.
I agree with that. And what bothers me as much as anything they've done in this whole deal is that they have sent the message over and over again that mediocrity is absolutely acceptable in a very visible part of the University. I don't think that the leadership of a school like CU should EVER be content with mediocrity.
But I don't think you fire them over this one issue, if they are effective in the rest of their duties. NBD is right about that. I do, however, think the Regents would be absolutely justified to step in and send a very clear message to Pres. Benson (and Mr. DiStefano, if necessary) that they need to be very careful when they start meddling in the decisions made by their department heads...
I suppose I could have used a different simile, but ****head seemed a little strong and inapplicable to the situation....
EDIT: Maybe I should have gone with spineless jelly fish...
Most likely scenario was that Bohn worked with boosters to secure the funds to buyout Hawkins and hire a new staff. Bohn takes proposal o DiStefano for his approval. DiStefano has to ensure that the money coming in is for real and that the political flak in the general public would mesh with the University's other plans. Benson is told about the plans and begins to "feel out" the political landscape.
Meanwhile Bohn feels he has secured all the necessary steps to make the decision, goes to Maui. In the meantime Benson and DiStefano find some political hurdles that they don't like and decide that the money situation has to be handled differently. Bohn gets back from Maui meets with them both and they tell him, "the only way this will wash in the general public is if the donors who are buying out the contract are announced publicly, so that there is no perception of state or university funds being used. Without that happening, we can't approve the buyout. It's your choice"
So Bohn can't get the donors to agree to that, then informs everyone that he is "choosing" to keep Hawkins.
Now, I am not saying that is what happened, but that is a much more likely scenario than Benson/DiStefano "lying and throwing Bohn under the bus" so to speak. Bohn arrived at a decision, but then his choices got limited, he chose differently. It was still his choice, just not the situation he had hoped for.
Of course, all of this should have been handled better from the moment we lost to Iowa State until now, this whole Hawkins buyout/firing/retention is beyond frustrating.
spineless jelly fish aint bad, but ****ing scared little bitch, cowardly *****, and retarded cheap whore all express my feelings on the situation better :smile2:
umm, are you high? I don't see how the identity of the donors would be necessary. That is NEVER done or even asked (by anyone in the nation afaik) unless the donor wishes to be known.
No chance that Hawkins was retained because the Univ wanted the list of donors to get rid of him made public.
Your scenario is entirely plausible. If true, Benson and DiStefano are just political hacks then. Athletics is the highest profile thing the University does, adds to donations and increases the pool of applicants. Instead of fostering that, they sold it out because they were scared of negative PR and the Legislature. Maybe Benson is too weak kneed to make his case to the Legislature for why he made, or allowed, a decision to be made. Who knows? Leaders lead. Politicians make deals. Which of the two we have in charge is fairly evident.
Yeah, Scotty. Besides, even if what you propose did in fact happen, giving a guy 2 choices, one of which is impossible, is not allowing someone to make a decision.
"Son, you can either mow the lawn today or you can hang out with your girlfriend... if you can arrange for Erin Andrews to have a 3-way with mom & dad.". Hard to say sonny boy chose to spend the day mowing the lawn. :wink2:
just to answer the original question... i am not, in fact, high. :lol:
I wasn't proposing that specific example as the "true story", just as an EXAMPLE of how Bohn's decision making could have been narrowed down, but he still had some type of "choice".
Maybe it was that he could pay the buyout to Hawkins but he would have to increase ticket prices by 30%.
One that does possibly work is: you're free to spend money as you see fit as soon as you pay back all the money the AD still owes the university.
But, again, that's the type of conversation that could have been made public, most voters would have agreed, Buff fans would have trouble disputing, and Bohn could have saved face. The way this went down and was handled with the fans and media was just a cluster****.
Separate names with a comma.