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".
SDBuff followed with the following:
This led to the big scoop from LongtimeBuff:
In response, LeftHandBuff (who also has some inside info), wrote the following:
And then this follow-up from LeftHandBuff:
And, finally, this from LeftHandBuff:
Thoughts?
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?