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!
BDC Editorial Board on Facilities upgrade
- Thread starter buff4bcs1985
- Start date
So we should be investing this money to study the demise of bees?
I like Boulder just not the current residents.....
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
I like Boulder just not the current residents.....
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
Dumbasses. Countries that have prohibited all the pesticides and chemicals we are putting on everything have healthy bee populations.
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...i22i10i30.0.0.0.17449...........0.7MSl2E8ILCQ
Not hard to find this info. Apparently too hard for newspaper writers though.
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...i22i10i30.0.0.0.17449...........0.7MSl2E8ILCQ
Not hard to find this info. Apparently too hard for newspaper writers though.
BuffaloSoldier76
Unsound Meat
But guys, "A study by the American Association of University Professors stated that 'too little money is going to faculty and too much to sports and administration.'" OMG! How did I not know that an association of professors would think that professors are underpaid???
As for global warming research, let the guys on the coasts figure that out. If they don't come up with a solution soon, Colorado becomes a much more appealing option to recruits in the Pac12 since we'll be one of the few campuses left that isn't underwater. Gargle salt water, California, Oregon, and Seattle schools!
As for global warming research, let the guys on the coasts figure that out. If they don't come up with a solution soon, Colorado becomes a much more appealing option to recruits in the Pac12 since we'll be one of the few campuses left that isn't underwater. Gargle salt water, California, Oregon, and Seattle schools!
BlackNGold
Club Member
I don't know rather to cry or laugh.
Laugh...after all these are the same people who seem to adore the transients/homeless and all the benefits they provide to this town...such as increased crime!
what these small-minded tools fail to acknowledge is that facilities upgrades are paid for by private donations. what they are really pissed off about, at the core, is that they live in a world where sports are so popular that private individuals will donate millions of dollars to enhance the experience. in their perfect world, there would be no sports to "compete" with academics and other more "worthy" causes for donations.
this is flawed on some many levels. first, it is isn't a zero-sum game whereby if one donates to sports one will not donate to something else. second, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that sports upgrades (and successful sports programs) lift all boats in terms of fund-raising. third, it isn't their money to decide how private individuals wish to spend it.
my favorite part of this endless (and fruitless) anti-sports campaign is that it is so, so easy to shut the haters up. win. win big. win big enough and they will go back into their caves for years. The original Coach Mac was everything, everything, that these factions hated. but, because he won and won big, they couldn't get anyone to listen to their strident little voices in the forum of public debate. we need to get there again. when these extremes views are judged by the majority in context, they are routinely rejected. the voice of the haters only carries when there is vulnerability.
this is flawed on some many levels. first, it is isn't a zero-sum game whereby if one donates to sports one will not donate to something else. second, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that sports upgrades (and successful sports programs) lift all boats in terms of fund-raising. third, it isn't their money to decide how private individuals wish to spend it.
my favorite part of this endless (and fruitless) anti-sports campaign is that it is so, so easy to shut the haters up. win. win big. win big enough and they will go back into their caves for years. The original Coach Mac was everything, everything, that these factions hated. but, because he won and won big, they couldn't get anyone to listen to their strident little voices in the forum of public debate. we need to get there again. when these extremes views are judged by the majority in context, they are routinely rejected. the voice of the haters only carries when there is vulnerability.
Absolutely correct.
These are the people who were pissed off in high school because they had 60 people including parents and little siblings who got dragged along show up for their open stage drama night when a couple thousand showed up for the football game.
They would have no trouble at all if these same donors were giving millions to the music department or the theater department or fine arts or any of "their" interest.
The problem for them is that people make choices that don't match their interest and so they want to force people to see their view on it.
It's the same thing as the woman who hates cheerleaders because she was never pretty enough or confident enough or coordinated enough to be a cheerleader and they got all the attention instead of her and her mediocre poetry.
Historically, athletics were always part of the school experience. Kids were required to participate in physical education. Modern day college athletics grew from that. Then we found out people would pay money for it and it's gotten kind of out of control taking on more importance than, perhaps, it should. Aside from revenue, athletics have always been part of the university experience and a way of staying connected with your school. People who stay connected also donate, sell there university to others, and remain involved with their school.
aik
Well-Known Member
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
I think someone with a bit more time than myself could draft an excellent academic argument that sports is the more effective than any affirmative action program at raising opportunity for some demographics. I can think of a player recently signed by the buffs. When I met his father in high school, he lived in what could be described as a nice trailer home. He had a loving and caring mom, but most of us would of considered them poor. He made the most of his education at CU while on scholarship.
I don't think his son has ever had to skip a meal and has traveled the world before following his fathers legacy and coming to CU. I think that story could be retold many thousands of times by scholarship athletes across America. The money could of gone elsewhere and possibly had the same affect. But it went into a sport and had this positive outcome.
The AD should be attempting to quantify the positive impact of athletics to the entire University and regularly using such data to lobby for what they need and public support. This would include increased admissions, PR for the university, added income to the city of Boulder, etc. You've got to at least try to get everyone to support your department and product. This is not a criticism of the AD yet. The AD may be doing this already or have plans for such.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I get it. If I'm a university professor, it probably drives me crazy that I can't get the lab equipment I requested in my budget but the football players got iPads to remotely view game and practice film. Something feels wrong about that.
However, what the anti-athletics crowd doesn't connect the dots on is how the game is played. Success in football rallies the donor base and makes it much more likely to obtain the donations to the science department which allow the purchase of that lab equipment.
If CU football were to win a Pac-12 title and make the national playoff, donations would spike across all departments. We may not like that the world works this way and that the impact on donations of the department having a Nobel winner would be less than they'd see from a football winner, but we have to deal with the world that is. One of the things about the university bubble (exists everywhere) and the specific Boulder bubble is that there are a lot of people who never grow up and out of the mindset that the world doesn't always fit a personal paradigm of what is "right". University investment in athletics is a pragmatic approach they need to embrace for the greater good, even if they feel a little bit dirty compromising their ideals by doing so.
pcbuff
Well-Known Member
Boulders first world problems. Meanwhile in India.
this. if you're an academician who doesn't care about football, I get it. however, I agree with 'Nik that athletic success leads to academic donations. Sort schools by endowment, filter out the private schools -- with the possible exception of Cal, all of those schools invest heavily in sports.
Maybe I was in the wrong department, but in the three years that I worked for CU, I never heard anyone hating on Athletics. If they were it was only about specific events and the resulting traffic. Professors (in lab sciences anyway) get their funding mostly from the government and other private organizations in the form of grants. Almost none of the money comes from the university itself. Actually, most labs end up having to kick back a percentage of their grant money to CU as "rent" for their space and to cover various department costs.
I think that most of this "resentment" probably comes mostly from the community that's projecting it onto the university. If there really is resentment coming from the academic side, then they probably aren't working hard enough. Between teaching, research, and finding the money to do said research, they have way more important things to be doing than bitching about athletics. Also, I'm willing to bet that any real resentment there is comes from the humanities side of things. They can shout all they want but they don't generate any money for the university (grants, patent income, or Pac12 money) and their opinions don't really count for anything in the big picture. All they can do is complain and as long as the people in power don't buckle under their pressure (or the community doesn't get behind them), they're just an annoyance.
I've talked to my FIL about this, a recently retired Philosophy prof at CU. He has said time and again that there was no institutional disdain for athletes or athletics. His comment was that he, and other professors, don't even really think about it.
Good insight.
So true on the Humanities.
Unless it fits some sort of socio-cultural agenda, there's no reason for academic faculty to care any more than the average Boulder resident outside of some annoyances over traffic and a disruption, every so often, to class schedule. Outside of that, I think most academic faculty either enjoy the campus sporting events or are indifferent to them.
I think that a lot of our perception about how the UCB faculty views CU Athletics is (still) colored by how a vocal minority of faculty reacted to "the scandal." There was some very real, tangible disdain emanating from the faculty during those times, but mostly coming from only a handful of faculty, who were given a large platform by a PR-reactive female President.
The best response is when you respond and the anti-athletics people have no way to respond
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk