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!

Participation trophies up next for CU

So the team that everyone here thought would win 5-6 games wins 10, the division (which had the rose bowl winner in it unlike those big 12 days), returns to the first bowl game in 10 years and officially brings the program we all love back and people want to **** all over that? If I was mac I would be proud as hell of that team and even though they lost the bowl game the goals for that team were met.
 
They accomplished a lot. Everybody congratulates them.

I, however, believe rewards should be tied to objectives, not behavior nor history, and should reflect standards of excellence, not an arbitrary past comparison. And should be decided by the coaching staff, not the players.

That's just me.

Maybe I'm wrong, old fashion, whatever.
 
Liver said:
no. i'm not.

gb did his own damage: we started his last season, i think, 7-2, and ranked. he, it is rumored, declined a contract extension at that time, hoping he could get a better deal (which i suspect included lifting the ridiculous recruiting restrictions we self-imposed). he made a bad decision. there is only so much that can be done when your team is so fundamentally outgunned.

as for leavitt, yes, he's a fine coordinator. that is so not germane. who hired him? who was the head coach? leavitt was incredibly important to the story. but, i do not understand why fans would want to piss all over some rings for some kids who worked their asses off and over-achieved. and, **** you, if you think these are participation trophies. that means you either aren't smart enough to understand what we went through or you are a troll. either way, **** off.
Click to expand...
Lol when did I say they were participation trophies? You must have trouble reading, it's okay though at least you're a tough keyboard warrior. You deserve a trophy for being so tough on the Internet though!
 
Big Jim said:
Excellent clarification, it is the baby boomers that ****ed up the millennial generation.
Click to expand...
Yeah but our players parents/role models seemed to do a good job. Takes a strong minded person to do what they did and it's nice to see them get something to remember it by. People like Chido and the guys on the team should give anyone hope for the future.
 
Last edited:
4DemBuffs said:
It's not for you or me to decide.

What is so hard about that for you?
Click to expand...

So you have an opinion that they should get rings this year, but don't have an opinion about future performance and rings in the scenario i asked.

Your justification for this year, if I remember correctly, is about history. I think that's flat out wrong.

I guess neither of us knows who decided nor the criteria used.

I hope it was the staff and the reward was tied to achieving on field performance goal. Otherwise, it's fair to wonder about the premise of the OP.
 
hawg1 said:
So you have an opinion that they should get rings this year, but don't have an opinion about future performance and rings in the scenario i asked.

Your justification for this year, if I remember correctly, is about history. I think that's flat out wrong.

I guess neither of us knows who decided nor the criteria used.

I hope it was the staff and the reward was tied to achieving on field performance goal. Otherwise, it's fair to wonder about the premise of the OP.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to **** on their accomplishment?

Why can't you just think, "huh, good for them"?
 
4DemBuffs said:
Why do you feel the need to **** on their accomplishment?

Why can't you just think, "huh, good for them"?[/QUOTE

Similarly, i wonder why you favor awarding rings based on achievement this year compared to recent history.
Click to expand...
 
So you won't answer the question.

Got it. You would rather just **** on what the kids accomplished.

My answer is pretty simple. The program had not accomplished **** in the last decade. And it matters to the kids and the program as a whole. And ****ting on the accomplishments of kids that are 18 to 23 years old doesn't really do much for me. Apparently, for you and BJ, it gives you some sort of self worth and it makes you just pathetic.
 
4DemBuffs said:
So you won't answer the question.

Got it. You would rather just **** on what the kids accomplished.

My answer is pretty simple. The program had not accomplished **** in the last decade. And it matters to the kids and the program as a whole. And ****ting on the accomplishments of kids that are 18 to 23 years old doesn't really do much for me. Apparently, for you and BJ, it gives you some sort of self worth and it makes you just pathetic.
Click to expand...

It's a discussion. And a difference in philosophy. This has nothing to do with how I feel about the players. It has more to do with how I feel about those that made the decision.

I think it unwarranted to give the players something because they want it (if that was the case).

I think it unwarranted to base it on history (if that was part of the decision)

If it coincides with achieving a notable team goal, then yes, the coaches should award the team.

So to answer your question, I'm not wired to think "huh, good for them".

I hate the term snowflake, but I think this kind of behavior supports those types of expectations.

I would have erected a team photo with player signatures and quotes about the season in the locker room for future players to know the significant contributions made by this very unique team with special leaders in an incredible year.

Instead, we have rings and "look at me and my ring" tweets.

We can disagree. It's OK.
 
4DemBuffs said:
So you won't answer the question.

Got it. You would rather just **** on what the kids accomplished.

My answer is pretty simple. The program had not accomplished **** in the last decade. And it matters to the kids and the program as a whole. And ****ting on the accomplishments of kids that are 18 to 23 years old doesn't really do much for me. Apparently, for you and BJ, it gives you some sort of self worth and it makes you just pathetic.
Click to expand...

1. Clearly this is about you, not the players. You suffered along with the kther CU fans, but you didn't get a ring.
2. They are men, not kids. Kids get participation trophies, you know this. You want them to be grown up, yet not. They are men.
 
hawg1 said:
It's a discussion. And a difference in philosophy. This has nothing to do with how I feel about the players. It has more to do with how I feel about those that made the decision.

I think it unwarranted to give the players something because they want it (if that was the case).

I think it unwarranted to base it on history (if that was part of the decision)

If it coincides with achieving a notable team goal, then yes, the coaches should award the team.

So to answer your question, I'm not wired to think "huh, good for them".

I hate the term snowflake, but I think this kind of behavior supports those types of expectations.

I would have erected a team photo with player signatures and quotes about the season in the locker room for future players to know the significant contributions made by this very unique team with special leaders in an incredible year.

Instead, we have rings and "look at me and my ring" tweets.

We can disagree. It's OK.
Click to expand...
But why the need to **** on the kids? I don't get that.
 
Did you not read what I said about this team and the players?

Please follow along.

I'm not crapping on the kids. I disagree with the decision.

Read. Understand. Comprehend. Use logic. Discuss.

Jeez.

Bye.
 
Big Jim said:
1. Clearly this is about you, not the players. You suffered along with the kther CU fans, but you didn't get a ring.
2. They are men, not kids. Kids get participation trophies, you know this. You want them to be grown up, yet not. They are men.
Click to expand...
The bender is strong and you are doubling down. Why the need to **** on the kids?

Tell us about your trophy case and about how you beaned your kid in the father son baseball game to toughen him up, you bad ass...
 
If you listened to any interviews this year their goal was clearly to get to the PAC championship game and they did that, let's calm down on calling the coaches out for rewarding them for reaching their goal.
 
Since when is second place a participation trophy? If that was the case the only trophy that guys on this board would have all you can eat pie and hot dog contests.
 
e31.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top