Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Mark Kennedy new, but soon to be old CU President - Official CU president Thread

My point is that when politics gets involved very few candidates for anything high profile and remotely political will not have their dirty laundry aired out in public.
 
DBT said:
No. But the entire process was politicized and continues to be. At any rate, that wasn’t my point. My point was that @Not Sure’s idea would almost ensure a Democratically dominated BoR and I think it needs to be balanced.
Click to expand...

That is why it needs reform DBT. Because we have politicians in political positions. I don't necessarily agree with it yet, but adding seats to the BOR and having those members appointed is likely to moderate the political winds that plague the current BOR. Right now you have members who can gain votes by being vocal about pet political topics that could be harmful to the University - like being anti-athletics.

You seem to be implying that because the legislature and governors office is controlled by Democrats, that they would appoint Democrats to the BOR and kill athletics. I disagree with your assertion. There is quite a bit of evidence that those appointments would be far less political than the current structure.

Look at CSU - their Board of Governors is appointed by the Governor, and their Board is extremely diverse with people who have high level experience in the private and public sectors: http://www.csusystem.edu/board-of-governors/board-members - Better yet, none of their bios mention their political affiliation! Compare that to CU's site, where everyone's political affiliation is prominently displayed.

CU has folks whose resumes are a far bit thinner (Kroll and Sharkey in particular)


Finally, just a side note - but the BOR at CU has been Republican dominated for the past 40 years. It will be ok if the Democrats take over one seat for a little while. They will not kill off sports.
 
dio said:
That is why it needs reform DBT. Because we have politicians in political positions. I don't necessarily agree with it yet, but adding seats to the BOR and having those members appointed is likely to moderate the political winds that plague the current BOR. Right now you have members who can gain votes by being vocal about pet political topics that could be harmful to the University - like being anti-athletics.

You seem to be implying that because the legislature and governors office is controlled by Democrats, that they would appoint Democrats to the BOR and kill athletics. I disagree with your assertion. There is quite a bit of evidence that those appointments would be far less political than the current structure.

Look at CSU - their Board of Governors is appointed by the Governor, and their Board is extremely diverse with people who have high level experience in the private and public sectors: http://www.csusystem.edu/board-of-governors/board-members - Better yet, none of their bios mention their political affiliation! Compare that to CU's site, where everyone's political affiliation is prominently displayed.

CU has folks whose resumes are a far bit thinner (Kroll and Sharkey in particular)


Finally, just a side note - but the BOR at CU has been Republican dominated for the past 40 years. It will be ok if the Democrats take over one seat for a little while. They will not kill off sports.
Click to expand...
Good points. I’m just an old contrarian.
 
dio said:
That is why it needs reform DBT. Because we have politicians in political positions. I don't necessarily agree with it yet, but adding seats to the BOR and having those members appointed is likely to moderate the political winds that plague the current BOR. Right now you have members who can gain votes by being vocal about pet political topics that could be harmful to the University - like being anti-athletics.

You seem to be implying that because the legislature and governors office is controlled by Democrats, that they would appoint Democrats to the BOR and kill athletics. I disagree with your assertion. There is quite a bit of evidence that those appointments would be far less political than the current structure.

Look at CSU - their Board of Governors is appointed by the Governor, and their Board is extremely diverse with people who have high level experience in the private and public sectors: http://www.csusystem.edu/board-of-governors/board-members - Better yet, none of their bios mention their political affiliation! Compare that to CU's site, where everyone's political affiliation is prominently displayed.

CU has folks whose resumes are a far bit thinner (Kroll and Sharkey in particular)


Finally, just a side note - but the BOR at CU has been Republican dominated for the past 40 years. It will be ok if the Democrats take over one seat for a little while. They will not kill off sports.
Click to expand...
Ok, but, I’m not sure we want to hold up CSU as an example of a well run school.
 
DBT said:
You want to kill athletics at CU? Colorado has gone almost full Democratic. The enemies of CU athletics on the BoR are Democrats. Look how they’ve voted on coaching decisions, pay for athletic staff, etc. Now, I’m sure most Democrats don’t hate athletics and want our sports teams to succeed. But the Regents that believe athletic funding is a waste of money are Democrats. I’m not sure why that is, but it is true.
Click to expand...
Liberals hate sports!

Or we just have one or two weirdos who happen to be Democrats. The worst of them even ran on a message of supporting athletics. He lied and all, but he did.
 
dio said:
...
Finally, just a side note - but the BOR at CU has been Republican dominated for the past 40 years. It will be ok if the Democrats take over one seat for a little while. They will not kill off sports.
Click to expand...
let us know when you run
 
Darth Snow said:
Liberals hate sports!

Or we just have one or two weirdos who happen to be Democrats. The worst of them even ran on a message of supporting athletics. He lied and all, but he did.
Click to expand...
I said most Democrats want our sports teams to succeed. Did you miss that or just choose to ignore it?
 
Darth Snow said:
Your Central message was that Democrats would destroy CU athletics. Did you forget that?
Click to expand...
I worry that if the BoR is stacked heavily that way it would potentially be detrimental to athletics. Yes. I didn’t say “destroy.” I said “kill.” And I stand by that. Three of the four Democrats, and I’m not sure about Lesley Smith, have all been critical of athletics to some degree.
 
Last edited:
DBT said:
I worry that if the BoR is stacked heavily that way it would potentially be detrimental to athletics. Yes. I didn’t say “destroy.” I said “kill.” And I stand by that. Three of the four Democrats, and I’m not sure about Lesley Smith, have all been critical of athletics to some degree.
Click to expand...
You've explained why I dismissed your distinction.
 
Make that 4 of 4 Democrats who have been critical of athletics. Lesley Smith voted against raises for assistant coaches as well. Even though the assistant coach salary budget was reduced from the previous year.

Can you imagine what would happen if, say, Rick George asked for $50 million to renovate Folsom and the entire BoR were Democrats even if the renovations were 100% funded by the AD?
 
DBT said:
Make that 4 of 4 Democrats who have been critical of athletics. Lesley Smith voted against raises for assistant coaches as well. Even though the assistant coach salary budget was reduced from the previous year.

Can you imagine what would happen if, say, Rick George asked for $50 million to renovate Folsom and the entire BoR were Democrats?
Click to expand...
It depends on if they’re elected or appointed democrats. Elected Democrats feel the need to make noise. Appointed democrats *should* be smart enough to understand that money donated to the athletic department isn’t necessarily available to cure cancer.
 
Not Sure said:
It depends on if they’re elected or appointed democrats. Elected Democrats feel the need to make noise. Appointed democrats *should* be smart enough to understand that money donated to the athletic department isn’t necessarily available to cure cancer.
Click to expand...
On one level I can see where they are coming from. College athletics is spiraling out of control. But I don’t want CU being at the forefront of fiscal reform because when we stop for a break we’d turn around and realize no one is following us.
 
DBT said:
Make that 4 of 4 Democrats who have been critical of athletics. Lesley Smith voted against raises for assistant coaches as well. Even though the assistant coach salary budget was reduced from the previous year.

Can you imagine what would happen if, say, Rick George asked for $50 million to renovate Folsom and the entire BoR were Democrats even if the renovations were 100% funded by the AD?
Click to expand...

Again, this is why you should be reaching out to your representative in support of BoR reform. If your greatest fear is Democrats taking over the BoR, then you should want to have more non-politicians on the BoR. There is a good chance that Carson's seat is taken by the Dems in the next election... in fact the GOP doesn't currently have a candidate running in District 6

You also overstate the importance of the BoR on athletics. It isn't like the GOP controlled BoR has led CU to the athletic promised land the last 20 years.
 
DBT said:
Make that 4 of 4 Democrats who have been critical of athletics. Lesley Smith voted against raises for assistant coaches as well. Even though the assistant coach salary budget was reduced from the previous year.

Can you imagine what would happen if, say, Rick George asked for $50 million to renovate Folsom and the entire BoR were Democrats even if the renovations were 100% funded by the AD?
Click to expand...
Ground your arguments in reality.

As in, look at other states that use a governor appointment instead of elected models.

For fun, let's look at the last two schools to win the Pac-12 football championship.

University of Oregon: their board of trustees is appointed by the governor, with one student trustee. They've had nothing but Democratic governors since... 1987.

University of Washington: their board of regents is appointed by the governor. They've had nothing but Democratic governors since... 1985.

Surely the democrats are going to kill athletics at those schools...


soon?

Sorry, but where universities do it by appointment in real world your fears have proven to be entirely unfounded.
 
dio said:
Again, this is why you should be reaching out to your representative in support of BoR reform. If your greatest fear is Democrats taking over the BoR, then you should want to have more non-politicians on the BoR. There is a good chance that Carson's seat is taken by the Dems in the next election... in fact the GOP doesn't currently have a candidate running in District 6

You also overstate the importance of the BoR on athletics. It isn't like the GOP controlled BoR has led CU to the athletic promised land the last 20 years.
Click to expand...
Haha! Good points!
 
skibum said:
Ground your arguments in reality.

As in, look at other states that use a governor appointment instead of elected models.

For fun, let's look at the last two schools to win the Pac-12 football championship.

University of Oregon: their board of trustees is appointed by the governor, with one student trustee. They've had nothing but Democratic governors since... 1987.

University of Washington: their board of regents is appointed by the governor. They've had nothing but Democratic governors since... 1985.

Surely the democrats are going to kill athletics at those schools...


soon?

Sorry, but where universities do it by appointment in real world your fears have proven to be entirely unfounded.
Click to expand...
You and @dio make good points. Though if CU’s AD had Oregon’s and Washington’s budget and clout no Regent would dare oppose it. And, for sure, appointed Regents don’t have the job security an elected one has other than not getting re-elected I suppose.
 
See DBT - I don't want more Democrats elected to the BoR. I also don't want more Republicans. Both do a myriad of dumb, dumb, dumb things for an institution that shouldn't be political at all. Most of the BoR is not remotely qualified to run an organization of the size and prestige as CU.

I care about CU the school as much as I care about CU athletics.

If I thought there was a chance in hell that this state would vote on a constitutional amendment to remove the BoR, I would be the first one out there gathering signatures.

Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen. So instead I look forward to hearing ideas on how the legislature may reform aspects of the BoR to make it less... awful. I am willing to try almost anything at this point, rather then having to decide between voting for Jack Kroll or Chance HIll.
 
dio said:
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
I find it humorous that some think that a board appointed by politicians won’t be politicized. There are pros and cons on both models but they will be political no matter what.
 
Regents posted a letter to the editor in today’s Post. Basically they defended their decision and called whoever outed the list an unscrupulous skallywag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top