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!

Holy Balls is this legit... or did woody finally have a stroke...

What was doesn't determine what will be.

I think to that run in the 1990s. We had a good coach, support from the administration, and some facilities improvements.

But we missed a golden opportunity because we didn't have Athletic Directors who understood the first thing about marketing. If someone like Bohn had been AD back then, CU would have more sports, better facilities, more booster support, and a better fan base today. And I sincerely believe that CU is still fixable and we will get there.

I actually believe that things are on the right track and CU athletics are about to get very good across the board.

I always love it when people revise history. Bill Marolt was the AD in the early 90s and Mike Bohn could not hold Marolt's jock when it comes to marketing and fund raising. They got Dal Ward built which was a state of the art facility back in 1990...Bohn has been here for 5 years now with no noticeable changes in any of the areas that you mention....Dal Ward was built with $14 million of private donations - Bohn had trouble raising $3 million for a bubble 17 years later.

Marolt left for a couple of reasons, one was Albino getting too involved in hiring the Mac's replacement.
 
I always love it when people revise history. Bill Marolt was the AD in the early 90s and Mike Bohn could not hold Marolt's jock when it comes to marketing and fund raising. They got Dal Ward built which was a state of the art facility back in 1990...Bohn has been here for 5 years now with no noticeable changes in any of the areas that you mention....Dal Ward was built with $14 million of private donations - Bohn had trouble raising $3 million for a bubble 17 years later.

Marolt left for a couple of reasons, one was Albino getting too involved in hiring the Mac's replacement.

Marolt was a fundraiser, not a marketer. There's a major difference. Tharp was neither.

And I think it's amazing that Bohn was able to raise any money to build a practice bubble at a time when the AD was hemorrhaging debt and still feeling the effects of a scandal that had turned away fans to the point where our season ticket base was down to about 18k in 2004.
 
I always love it when people revise history. Bill Marolt was the AD in the early 90s and Mike Bohn could not hold Marolt's jock when it comes to marketing and fund raising. They got Dal Ward built which was a state of the art facility back in 1990...Bohn has been here for 5 years now with no noticeable changes in any of the areas that you mention....Dal Ward was built with $14 million of private donations - Bohn had trouble raising $3 million for a bubble 17 years later.

Marolt left for a couple of reasons, one was Albino getting too involved in hiring the Mac's replacement.

The football team also had 2-3 good years before Dal Ward was built.
 
Marolt was a fundraiser, not a marketer. There's a major difference. Tharp was neither.

And I think it's amazing that Bohn was able to raise any money to build a practice bubble at a time when the AD was hemorrhaging debt and still feeling the effects of a scandal that had turned away fans to the point where our season ticket base was down to about 18k in 2004.

Bohn is a salesman not a marketeer that is why he struggles with any ideas beyond cutting prices which diminishes his brand value. Marolt was and still is great at both fund raising and marketing...he also is a great administrator. To suggest that CU athletics languished under his watch is more than laughable.
 
Bohn is a salesman not a marketeer that is why he struggles with any ideas beyond cutting prices which diminishes his brand value. Marolt was and still is great at both fund raising and marketing...he also is a great administrator. To suggest that CU athletics languished under his watch is more than laughable.

Agree. I was at CU during the Marolt years and I can only wish a guy as talented as he was would run the AD again.
 
To suggest that CU athletics languished under his watch is more than laughable.

No one said it "languished" except you just now. My point is that it didn't capitalize on the situation. The alumni network and database, booster clubs, and fan base were nowhere near where they should have been. That said, I think Marolt was a damn good AD. I'm pointing to one area he did not excel in and it's the biggest challenge for any CU athletic director. The foundation was never built, and someone is going to have to do it or this thing will never get turned around.

Also, you don't really think that Mike Bohn's only marketing move is to cut prices, do you? That was hyperbole, right?
 
David Sirota was ripping this on AM760 this morning. Calling the donors and the school 'tone-deaf' and insane to be dumping $50M into the AD in a time of budget cuts. Wants the donors to prioritize education above sports.
 
I agree that Marolt didn't do anything to lay a solid foundation for future success. I think Bohn is trying to do this, but the results are spotty at best. It will take years before we know if his efforts are working. Marolt leveraged the success of his athletic teams to increase funding. Bohn doesn't have the luxury of successful athletic programs to increase funding, so he's left with good old fashioned marketing.

Put another way - I think Marolt took the view that successful athletic programs translated into increased attendance and funding. Bohn views it from the other way around - that increased fan support and funding will translate into on-field/court success for the athletic programs. I agree with Bohn's approach, although it sure would be nice if we could see what having some success on the field looked like.
 
David Sirota was ripping this on AM760 this morning. Calling the donors and the school 'tone-deaf' and insane to be dumping $50M into the AD in a time of budget cuts. Wants the donors to prioritize education above sports.

Who the eff is David Sirota and what qualifies him to make such statements?
 
I have a co-worker who's brother is a professor at Okie St. I'll tell you this. She told me that the academic folks were really pissed that T. Boone earmarked all of his donations to athletics.
 
typical

David Sirota was ripping this on AM760 this morning. Calling the donors and the school 'tone-deaf' and insane to be dumping $50M into the AD in a time of budget cuts. Wants the donors to prioritize education above sports.

put money into something that can get more money in the future. Football, that's it and that's all.
 
David Sirota was ripping this on AM760 this morning. Calling the donors and the school 'tone-deaf' and insane to be dumping $50M into the AD in a time of budget cuts. Wants the donors to prioritize education above sports.

That in a nutshell sums up all the problems with CU and the libs that want to run things. It does not matter that it would all be private funds donated by individuals. Forget the fact that top athletic programs will generate tons of additional money from increases in enrollment applications, TV revenue, and marketing that benefits every department in the school.

If 50 people wanted to get together and donate to CU for a study on the correlation of endangered species, opressed minorities and global warming in third world nations Sirota would think that it would be the best use of $50m ever.
 
I actually like David Sirota, but just disagreed with him on this point :smile2:
 
Here is a quite from the Daily Camera letters today:

Compete with
brains, not muscles
Neill Woelk`s column about raising $50 million for the University of Colorado athletics would only add fuel to the juggernaut that is Division One sports.
He also has the wrong competitors in sight. Back in the 1930s, the University of Chicago banned football because it was becoming a more powerful entity than the university itself. Today, the University of Chicago, with its plethora of Nobel laureates, is a preeminent university in America. It raises billions of dollars.
We also might keep in mind that Ivy League colleges and universities do not award athletic scholarships. Are these schools not competitive? Even though the quality of football isn`t as high, the excitement of a Harvard-Yale game is through the roof and packs the house.
CU shouldn`t compete with Texas, Nebraska and Oklahoma in athletics. It should compete with Princeton in academics. And big money will follow.
MICHAEL DURALL
 
The either/or mentality of the academic left on this subject is mind boggling. Aren't they supposed to be smart? When it comes to football and academic prestige, we want to be Michigan. When it comes to basketball, we want to be Duke. When it comes to the number of sports offered and our excellence across the board, we want to be Stanford. That's the goal of most CU fans. We want CU to stand for and achieve excellence in everything.
 
Here is a quite from the Daily Camera letters today:

[/B]

That is quite a quote...

I love how this douche cherry picks a few Universities with academic prestige and lesser/no athletic programs. He could look at schools like Duke, Stanford, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, etc. that actually manage to do both (with varying degrees of success). Or he could look at major public institutions like Michigan, Virginia, Cal-Berkely or God forbid, Texas that somehow manage to have outstanding academic reputations while still competing in major college sports. Those schools are actually far more in CU's peer group than the Ivy League schools he points to. CU is an outstanding institution, but this guy is apparently part of a delusional group that thinks it is some kind of Ivy League university in waiting...

And, even more to the point, it isn't his ****ing money. If he wants to donate a million dollars, he is free to donate it wherever he wants. But so are the people who are actually working on stepping up and doing something instead of just whining in the letters column of the Daily Camera...
 
David Sirota was ripping this on AM760 this morning. Calling the donors and the school 'tone-deaf' and insane to be dumping $50M into the AD in a time of budget cuts. Wants the donors to prioritize education above sports.

Classic "progressive" crap from a crappy station..
 
As a member of the "academic left" I have to say that I bleed black and gold in all aspects. I think that a strong athletics program is a very important asset to the university. Professional athletes are very high profile people in the world today and when they make a lot of money and find lots of success, the university could benefit in the form of positive publicity and (possibly) donations. Perhaps more importantly, football provides much of the money for scholarships to other programs. How many kids on the volleyball team or the golf team or track/cross country would be able to get a scholarship without the money produced by the football program? Athletics provides a way for many students to get an education when they might not otherwise have that opportunity. I'd say that's worth the investment.
 
No one said it "languished" except you just now. My point is that it didn't capitalize on the situation. The alumni network and database, booster clubs, and fan base were nowhere near where they should have been. That said, I think Marolt was a damn good AD. I'm pointing to one area he did not excel in and it's the biggest challenge for any CU athletic director. The foundation was never built, and someone is going to have to do it or this thing will never get turned around.

Also, you don't really think that Mike Bohn's only marketing move is to cut prices, do you? That was hyperbole, right?

I guess we will just disagree. Marolt laid a solid foundation for the future when he was AD. Go back and look at attendance... CU drew over 52000 a game in 98 and has not touched that again. The Booster club was killed by the administration and was only brought back recently (under Tharp). Cutting prices is not a marketing move it is a sales tactic. I don't want to get in a big discussion about marketing, branding and sales but cutting prices diminishes your brand - it may work in the short term but it will kill you in the long run. If I make just the minimum donation for my seats I pay ~ $105 per seat per game. CU was selling seats in our section 2 for $86 for some games. More than one person sitting around us commented about how stupid they felt paying full boat when the tickets were available at a 60% discount.

CU fan base is what it is I doubt that marketing effort alone is going to turn casual football fans into CU - a good product on the field and the courts helps that. Bohn bears responsibility for the hiring and extending Hawkins which has resulted in a poor product on the field.
 
Last edited:
I will say that I thought that Neill Woelk's column was beyond stupid (which is becoming par for him). He recently has got on the band wagon of trying to reduce CU fans expectations because of lack of funding - trying to justify the poor performance on the field. But Woelk ignores the fact that CU is getting beat by CSU, Toledo, ISU, KSU, Mizzou - none of which are spending a fortune on football. I think many fans would be happier if CU was at least winning those games.
 
CU will never, and I mean NEVER be able to compete with Princeton, Harvard, Yale, etc in academics. It's not supposed to. That letter is pure lunacy.

Thank the Lord I don't read the Daily Camera. I'd go nuts.
 
I will say that I thought that Neill Woelk's column was beyond stupid (which is becoming par for him). He recently has got on the band wagon of trying to reduce CU fans expectations because of lack of funding - trying to justify the poor performance on the field. But Woelk ignores the fact that CU is getting beat by CSU, Toledo, ISU, KSU, Mizzou - none of which are spending a fortune on football. I think many fans would be happier if CU was at least winning those games.

^^^This^^^

Based on spending levels, it's unrealistic to expect CU football to be on par with Texas or Oklahoma every year (or even Nebraska). Historically, we never have been and it's not a goal that is likely to be achieved or sustained. We're more like a Wisconsin in the Big 10 that looks up at Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in revenues, funding and overall resources but is still a consistent winner that goes into every season with a realistic shot at winning the conference championship (even though they may only be the pre-season favorite every decade or so).

Same thing in basketball. It's unlikely we'll ever have the resources and fan support of a Kentucky or Kansas, or even have the finances to create a juggernaut at a football school like Texas, Florida and Ohio State have done. But, once again using the Wisconsin example, CU can certainly become a consistent winner that draws a great crowd, is one of the toughest road games for our Big 12 opponents, makes some noise in the Big 12 tourney nearly every year, and makes the NCAA tournament nearly every year.

I love the Wisconsin example because that's a state with a population similar to Colorado (5.6 million vs 5.0 million). Both are within states that don't produce as much football talent as the top teams in their conferences (CO puts out more, but has a D1 football program in-state while Wisconsin doesn't). Both are in states that produce little basketball talent (Wisconsin produces a little more, but in-state Marquette is a top program from the Big East that Wisconsin has to compete with). Both are located in very desirable college towns (Madison & Boulder). Academics are similar. Both are close to a major city (Milwaukee & Denver). Etc., etc. They're the model for CU. And with some of our built-in advantages (better weather, tradition, mountains and outdoor activities, recruiting pipelines to California & Texas trumping pipelines to Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, etc.), CU should be able to surpass what Wisconsin has achieved the past 15 or so years.
 
The way I look at it is, people can write and say whatever the hell they want about this 50 mil. The people that have that money can use it however the **** they want to. Let them cry and compare CU to Princeton and Yale, which is laughable. I hope it happens, when they cry about it after the fact, Id hope one of the donors would tell them "Boo ****ing Hoo!"
 
The way I look at it is, people can write and say whatever the hell they want about this 50 mil. The people that have that money can use it however the **** they want to. Let them cry and compare CU to Princeton and Yale, which is laughable. I hope it happens, when they cry about it after the fact, Id hope one of the donors would tell them "Boo ****ing Hoo!"

Exactly. It's not like CU is talking about taking a state-appointed grant and putting it toward athletics instead of academics.
 
Well one of you in the know at CU answer me a few questions if you dont mind. How can having a successful Athletic Department that generates alot of money do anything but help academics? Im assuming they get a piece of that. Question 2, is there some sort of policy at CU that states how and where a donation has to be made? Other words, can you donate to whatever department you damn well please? To me, it kinda defeats the purpose of calling it a donation if you are told how you have to use your own damn money.
 
It's always refreshing to know that the Boulder elite knows how to spend everybody elses money. Some things never change.
 
Back
Top