How will the facilities announcement help recruiting, if at all?

[Buffnik]

Once the planned new facilities are built. How will they compare with the big dogs in the Pac12, or even the big dogs across the country?

This will make CU's facilities about average for a BCS program. Maybe a bit better than that considering they'll be new.

That is exactly where CU needs to be on facilities. It takes it out of the equation when a recruit is deciding between us and other BCS competitors, moving the decision criteria more to location, academic rep and campus life where we have advantages over most. On things like tradition we hold our own once you get outside the Top 10-15 all-time programs. Conference affiliation is a big plus for us now with the Pac-12 network and the way the conference owns the west. We also do well with the "silliness factor" that seems to becoming ever more important - we're a Nike school that has uniforms & colors that teenagers seem to like.

The big areas where we needed to get on track were with recent success, coaching prestige and facilities. We definitely made moves that upgraded the latter two this offseason and can only hope that this and a more veteran team with some guys returning from injury causes immediate improvement on that all-important first criteria. Most important thing for us right now is that we need some wins.

 

[Junction]

Are you sure about the plans part? Embree sold facilities pretty hard and it didn't seem to help, but then again his 2nd class was pretty good and he must have mentioned new facilities to every recruit. I wonder why he stopped working.

fify

 

[SINKRATZ]

Read Nik's post. They will be built unless they want to lose MM after only one year potentially.

I get the whole MM contract reasoning, but has anyone actually seen the language? What is required and when? If we break ground on some computer rooms and retrofit the stadium so it doesn't fall in the creek, does that satisfy the contract obligations? I would love to see what is required to be built and when, and then I want to see the AD's plan for raising the funds it needs to start the work. I don't think I'm asking too much and I don't think I'm alone.

Mac is a state employee so his contract must be public record, right?

 

[Buffnik]

I get the whole MM contract reasoning, but has anyone actually seen the language? What is required and when? If we break ground on some computer rooms and retrofit the stadium so it doesn't fall in the creek, does that satisfy the contract obligations? I would love to see what is required to be built and when, and then I want to see the AD's plan for raising the funds it needs to start the work. I don't think I'm asking too much and I don't think I'm alone.

Mac is a state employee so his contract must be public record, right?

I can't find the actual contract.

What has been reported is the following stipulations:

Dec 1, 2013: Facilities Plan must be submitted or MacIntyre can leave CU with no penalty. (I think this week's announcement puts us ahead of schedule.)

Dec 1, 2014: Design Contract must be awarded or MacIntyre can leave CU with no penalty.

Other than that, the original chatter from CU to the press was that they expected to break ground in 2015 and complete by 2016. I'm not sure if the Phases I-IV thing we saw adjusts that. I guess it all depends on what design ends up being chosen some time in the next 21 months and the associated funding.

http://www.denverpost.com/cu/ci_22181285/colorado-commits-mike-macintyre-asks-donors-fund-folsom

 

[Quattro]

If we have around half of the $50M raised already wouldn't that put us ahead of schedule for the ground breaking date as well?

 

[azbuff]

I remember a plan with a fricking castle of an indoor practice facility on Franklin Field. That is what we need. Not a "good enough" facility on fricking Arapahoe.

 

[slider]

I remember a plan with a fricking castle of an indoor practice facility on Franklin Field. That is what we need. Not a "good enough" facility on fricking Arapahoe.

We would build as big as money allows. Unfortunately our donation goal is a lowly $50MM for a "transformational" facilities project. That should tell you something

 

[Quattro]

I remember a plan with a fricking castle of an indoor practice facility on Franklin Field. That is what we need. Not a "good enough" facility on fricking Arapahoe.

Not enough room to warrant how much more it would cost

 

[BinaryBuff]

As Nik stated, it will help because it shows a commitment. People should stop downplaying this, this is the start of a new era.

I need to hear WHEN the IPF will be completed. Until then, having a plan for facilities improvements might show commitment (and it would seem to show a huge level of commitment over what we've seen over the past many years), but if the IPF won't be done for 4-5 years, I'm having a hard time seeing how that really influences a recruit's decision right now.

 

[slider]

I need to hear WHEN the IPF will be completed. Until then, having a plan for facilities improvements might show commitment (and it would seem to show a huge level of commitment over what we've seen over the past many years), but if the IPF won't be done for 4-5 years, I'm having a hard time seeing how that really influences a recruit's decision right now.

Am I wrong in not expecting the IPF for 10+ years?

 

[SINKRATZ]

I can't find the actual contract.

What has been reported is the following stipulations:

Dec 1, 2013: Facilities Plan must be submitted or MacIntyre can leave CU with no penalty. (I think this week's announcement puts us ahead of schedule.)

Dec 1, 2014: Design Contract must be awarded or MacIntyre can leave CU with no penalty.

Other than that, the original chatter from CU to the press was that they expected to break ground in 2015 and complete by 2016. I'm not sure if the Phases I-IV thing we saw adjusts that. I guess it all depends on what design ends up being chosen some time in the next 21 months and the associated funding.

http://www.denverpost.com/cu/ci_22181285/colorado-commits-mike-macintyre-asks-donors-fund-folsom

Thanks, I remember some of that chatter, but couldn't remember the dates.

What worries me about that schedule (other than it is already years behind our peers) is that it's still too slow an vague.

Mac will conceivably be well into his 3rd season before we even have to break ground on anything. By that time, if he has turned this dumpster fire of a program around he could very likely be looking towards his next coaching move (I just don't see a southern boy sticking around Boulder longer than he has to if he has better options in the south). Conversely, if he has failed to get us on the right track he's not going to have many options to bolt, so either way this facilities clause in his contract seems weak just from what information has been made public.

I'd love to see that contract language because I know I'm making a lot of assumptions, but my fear is that all CU has to do to meet its contract obligations is break ground on some "Phase 1" improvement like expanding computer rooms or building more offices for compliance people and even that won't happen until 2015. That's not good enough.

 

[Buff_nc]

Then there is the debbie downer view. Next year and the following several years, during which there is little public followup from this week's announcement, competitors note to recruits "they couldn't even get $50M raised to start their little facilities tweak! What kind of shape is that program in"?

 

[Duff Man]

The announcement was a big step forward, now we need to see regular progress. The overall timeline is great if we are talking five years. I also hope the IPF is above average since we will have it for a while.

Basically, I think everyone has valid points in this thread. Cautious optimism is where I stand.

 

[tante]

Not enough room to warrant how much more it would cost

False.

 

[Buffnik]

Duff is right, I think. Cautious optimism. Don't piss on a positive development, but don't bathe in Kool-Aid until they follow through with getting it done in the right way.

@ Skinratz - I wouldn't be so sure about the "southern boy" thing. Remember, there's also the consideration of what part of the country the wife prefers to live. If you're going to be in a high-stress job working the hours of a BCS head coach, making sure your wife and kids are happy is hugely important. HCMM, as a coach's son, gets this.

 

[sackman]

I actually prefer the facility on Arapahoe. It allows for a lot more expansion of athletic facilities in and around the current family housing area. The possibilities are endless. While it's pie in the sky dreaming on my part, that would be a fantastic spot for an Olympic sized swimming facility. There's a lot of space there.

The facilities themselves don't have to be on par with Oregon or Oklahoma State. The reason the facilities are so great in those places is that those places suck. As Nik correctly pointed out, we need to have facilities that don't turn people off. So long as they're not a deterrent, we're fine. And while what's being proposed isn't "game changing", which was promised, it's adequate.

My biggest concern is that we do these improvements and then stop. We can never stop improving. That's the reality of college athletics these days. We need to keep improving or we will be left behind. The Dal Ward Center was, at one time, considered the finest athletic facility in college sports. That lasted about a year, and it eventually became an anchor. We can't afford to let that happen. Catch up, and then keep pace.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Duff is right, I think. Cautious optimism. Don't piss on a positive development, but don't bathe in Kool-Aid until they follow through with getting it done in the right way.

@ Skinratz - I wouldn't be so sure about the "southern boy" thing. Remember, there's also the consideration of what part of the country the wife prefers to live. If you're going to be in a high-stress job working the hours of a BCS head coach, making sure your wife and kids are happy is hugely important. HCMM, as a coach's son, gets this.

You could be right, I have no idea what Mac's family situation is, but I can't remember a lot of coaches passing up a bigger opportunity an more money because the wife likes the town they live in. It's probably happened somewhere, but being a coach's wife means moving around a lot.

 

[slider]

I hope MacIntyre turns us around so the SEC comes calling. By then we won't be a dumpster fire and will have facilities built in order to lure a coach we all want

 

[Buffnik]

I hope MacIntyre turns us around so the SEC comes calling. By then we won't be a dumpster fire and will have facilities built in order to lure a coach we all want

Or match the offer for HCMM in order to keep him.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I hope MacIntyre turns us around so the SEC comes calling. By then we won't be a dumpster fire and will have facilities built in order to lure a coach we all want

Just like we leveraged our move to the PAC 12 and the big payday from the new TV deal to lure a coach we all wanted?

I know we'll be much better off if we start winning even if it means we lose our coach to another job and I'm fine with that, I guess my issue is with this facilities clause in his contract - I don't see it meaning much in practice. If we start winning and he (or his wife) really, truly love it here, then he's not going to leave if the only reason is because we haven't met facility timeline obligations. And if some other school wants to steal him away, they're going to do it whether or not we have a buyout - it's not like the coach pays that buyout anyway.

I'm pleased that we have come out publicly and stated intentions to build facilities, but I really don't believe coach Mac's contract makes as big a difference as many think. I see it as something to tell recruits about, nothing more.

 

[CUFan]

I actually prefer the facility on Arapahoe. It allows for a lot more expansion of athletic facilities in and around the current family housing area. The possibilities are endless. While it's pie in the sky dreaming on my part, that would be a fantastic spot for an Olympic sized swimming facility. There's a lot of space there.

The facilities themselves don't have to be on par with Oregon or Oklahoma State. The reason the facilities are so great in those places is that those places suck. As Nik correctly pointed out, we need to have facilities that don't turn people off. So long as they're not a deterrent, we're fine. And while what's being proposed isn't "game changing", which was promised, it's adequate.

My biggest concern is that we do these improvements and then stop. We can never stop improving. That's the reality of college athletics these days. We need to keep improving or we will be left behind. The Dal Ward Center was, at one time, considered the finest athletic facility in college sports. That lasted about a year, and it eventually became an anchor. We can't afford to let that happen. Catch up, and then keep pace.

This is a major concern. By the time (or if) we actually get these facilities built, many will have made major improvements. Our facilities will quickly become subpar if they don't do continual improvements. I doubt CU understands this, but if they do I doubt they care. We've seen this before. Dal Ward was awesome when it was built, but we never touched it again for decades.

This process should have been started long ago. If these facilities are built, I expect the IPF to not be started for a long time. We are already so far behind probably doesn't matter.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Am I wrong in not expecting the IPF for 10+ years?

Depends on when you started expecting it. I'm already in for 15.

 

[Buffnik]

Just like we leveraged our move to the PAC 12 and the big payday from the new TV deal to lure a coach we all wanted?

I know we'll be much better off if we start winning even if it means we lose our coach to another job and I'm fine with that, I guess my issue is with this facilities clause in his contract - I don't see it meaning much in practice. If we start winning and he (or his wife) really, truly love it here, then he's not going to leave if the only reason is because we haven't met facility timeline obligations. And if some other school wants to steal him away, they're going to do it whether or not we have a buyout - it's not like the coach pays that buyout anyway.

I'm pleased that we have come out publicly and stated intentions to build facilities, but I really don't believe coach Mac's contract makes as big a difference as many think. I see it as something to tell recruits about, nothing more.

It actually is important for not only getting him to stay but also for attracting another coach if HCMM would decide to leave.

It's like the situation with Tad Boyle. He's a Colorado boy. He and his family love it here. But if ever started feeling like he'd hit a career ceiling at CU because the school wouldn't invest in the facilities/recruiting budget/academic support/assistant salaries he needed in order to have a legitimate opportunity to win a championship, then he'd be much more likely to leave. That's much more important to someone than another program offering a bit more money if he's already a rich man from his CU position.

Give HCMM everything he needs to win along with a competitive salary. He's already got the assistant salary pool and the recruiting budget. There have been huge improvements with admissions working with the program (it's actually a positive now) and investment in academic support for athletes. Our recruiting budget is one of the highest in the nation. History shows CU is a place where you can win a national championship in football. So it really comes down to facilities.

 

[SINKRATZ]

It actually is important for not only getting him to stay but also for attracting another coach if HCMM would decide to leave.

It's like the situation with Tad Boyle. He's a Colorado boy. He and his family love it here. But if ever started feeling like he'd hit a career ceiling at CU because the school wouldn't invest in the facilities/recruiting budget/academic support/assistant salaries he needed in order to have a legitimate opportunity to win a championship, then he'd be much more likely to leave. That's much more important to someone than another program offering a bit more money if he's already a rich man from his CU position.

Give HCMM everything he needs to win along with a competitive salary. He's already got the assistant salary pool and the recruiting budget. There have been huge improvements with admissions working with the program (it's actually a positive now) and investment in academic support for athletes. Our recruiting budget is one of the highest in the nation. History shows CU is a place where you can win a national championship in football. So it really comes down to facilities.

I still don't see how that clause helps keep him here. Bzdelik had a similar clause, and we actually followed through on those improvements and he still left after 3 years. To me this isn't a protection at all, it's a recruiting tool.

I'm still very curious what the contract language says, there's a big difference to me between CU committing to breaking ground on football related facilities by 2015, and committing to breaking ground on an IPF and renovations/expansion to Dal Ward, upgrades sound system at Folsom, etc by 2015 with financing to be in place along a specific timeline.

Fans, boosters, recruits, we all need to see something being built. Announcements, upon announcements, upon contract language BS, aren't good enough anymore. A guy who just got a BCS job and a 400% raise isn't going to be complaining about facilities for a while and certainly not until he starts showing some improvement on the field, so I don't hold out a lot of hope that his facilities buyout clause is weighing too heavily on the admin right now.

 

[Buffnik]

What we all want is for the design to be awarded ahead of schedule. That's what really drives us getting the info on this project that we're craving.

Does anyone know how that works within state law? Is there a minimum amount of time for which a state institution has to accept design / bid submissions before awarding them?

 

[SBG]

People leave their bosses, not their jobs. As long as the money is "good enough," then please will stay if they like where they work (bosses, people, work environment).

If I was making 1.5MM+ a year and someone came at me for an offer for 2MM I doubt I would go IF I felt I had the support of my bosses. The bosses in this case are Bohn, DiStephano and Benson. All 3 of those guys need to make sure they are able to do what they can for their prized coaches (see Boyle). CU isn't a blue blood in either CFB or basketball, but if they feel as if the bosses are doing everything they can to help them win the MNC or the NCAA tourney we could keep a coach for life. At places like UNC or Duke or KU or UK you absolutely know that the admin will do whatever it takes to win a national title.

That's why those places are "destination jobs."

 

[77buff]

Pretty easy for opposing BCS coaches to say Colorado is all talk and no follow through. Plus opposing BCS coaches simply say they have the facilities now and Colorado MIGHT in the future (potentially distant).

Unfortunately, this is the problem, unless construction is in progress. Drawings don't mean anything to a 17 year old. Especially when he may be graduated when they are completed.