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!

Rumors of Certain Regents Potentially Voting Against MT Contract

FightCu1414 said:
I'm mostly serious about primarying him. Just wish I wasn't 24 with no political background, but given the allbuffs poll stuffing anything is possible!
Click to expand...
Wait, you joined a message board when you were 14!? Lol
 
Embarrassing that the people who are responsible for the governance of the states flagship university, one that is seen as being one of the upper level public universities in the nation and having some programs that are considered elite would have so little understanding of how football and athletics is funded, impacts the university, and is perceived.

A couple things about the two regents in question.

Everyone here who spends time on the politics forum knows I am not a Democrat. This isn't an issue of Democrat vs. Republican, it is an issue of grossly incompetent individuals getting nominated instead of much more qualified persons from the Democratic party. Regent is considered in many ways a throw away office and doesn't get the quality of individuals needed seeking election we need. One solution I proposed earlier was to seek retired executives who have experience dealing with large, complex organizations and who want to make a positive impact and stay connected without a full time obligation. I don't have any question that each of these districts has highly qualified individuals who could be persuaded to run who would be assets to the university on the board.

Secondly, it is important that we find these highly qualified Democratic candidates because both of these districts are drawn in a way to make it difficult or impossible for a Republican to win, especially in today's polarized environment. This election needs to be won in the primary because the general election is too late.
 
Buffnik said:
If you're really interested in that initiative and aren't just grandstanding, you vote "yes" while releasing a statement about all the great work CU is doing on concussion protocols, a new on-site medical facility, research & design work on new helmets, a new mental health initiative, etc. You then talk about how much you look forward to continue working with Rick George along with new head coach Mel Tucker on advancing CU's leadership in the area of football safety.

She did not do that. She went obstructionist. Tells me that she's full of ****.
Click to expand...

she's just doing a little table-setting for later. yes, she is full of ****.
 
Denver_sc said:
I almost can't properly express in words how angry it makes me that a ****ing ignoramus like Jack Kroll has so much power within an institution that I love so much. He's said stupid **** before, but today takes the cake:
  1. The AD is self funded at CU. It literally makes no difference to any research funding whatsoever how much CU pays its HC
  2. The AD is getting a coach for well below market rate. Peer institutions pay much more for their coaches
  3. Most of the implied research he's talking about is funded by grants- i.e. NOT CU.
  4. What CU does pay for, and how, is through tuition charged to students, and CU makes a good deal more on out of state students. There is a lot of anectdotal and empirical evidence that shows a correlation to the performance of a football team with the number of applications for out-of-state students.
Not only does Kroll not understand how the AD works or what function the AD has within the University system, he also appears to have a fundamental ignorance about many other basic things that you'd expect a person in his position to understand. It's an absolute joke that he's a regent, his ignorance is an absolute embarassment, and he's ****ing garbage.

Hallelujah. Holy ****; where's the Tylenol?
Click to expand...
He got his sound bite for smarmy Kyle Clark's trash program. That's all he was interested in.
 
Liver said:
matty is just a dumbass low-functioning hack with a grudge. he's not worth the rage.

kroll is actually incompetent and he's in a role where competence is a necessity. get his sorry ass out, colorado voters. do your duty-- beating a houseplant in a primary really should be simple. think of the glories of any candidate debates. my god. he'll be left weeping on the stage.
Click to expand...
Outside voting no on Tucker's contract what are concrete examples he hasn't performed the duties of his office in a competent manner?
 
I wish you guys would come out and admit you have a political agenda against certain regents instead of making outrageous claims of stupidity and a desire to destroy the AD. I'd have so much more respect for that.
 
Buffnik said:
The majority would not say that a Board of Regents member for a major state university should be opposed to the Athletic Director paying a football coach a salary that is within budget and also within or a bit below the going market rate in D1.

That is why she is fringe. And if you don't get that, I have no idea why you participate on Allbuffs.
Click to expand...

You got your way by an overwhelming majority yet you bitch and whine. That's what I fail to understand.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Yes they will. The perception is out there. McChesney deals with it constantly. The perception that CU doesn't care about football appears to be a factor in being unable to hire our top choices as assistant coaches. Local radio DJ's like Dmac, Big Al, Dave Logan, Rick Lewis, Vic Lombardi, Marc Moser discussed it during the coaching staff, continue to discuss it as it pertains to filling out the assistant coaching staff, and will continue to talk about it because of the vote today.

The perception is real. It is not just a message board narrative.
Click to expand...
Ok. Let's say it's true. How is the AD been negatively affected in tangible ways you can point to?
 
DrunkRalphie said:
I wish you guys would come out and admit you have a political agenda against certain regents instead of making outrageous claims of stupidity and a desire to destroy the AD. I'd have so much more respect for that.
Click to expand...

Does a website dedicated to CU athletics really require its members to explicitly state that their political agenda is to support CU athletics?
 
Buffnik said:
New Vice Chair Jack Kroll thinks that Rick George should donate most of AD revenue to cancer research instead of funding the CU athletic department. (Likes getting free football tix as a perk of his job, though.)
Former Vice Chair Linda Shoemaker doesn't think CU should have football because it isn't a safe sport.

Your Denver and Boulder Regents, folks.

You know how Baylor's Board made horrible decisions because it got controlled by the fringe political right? CU's Board is always at risk of the same thing happening with control swinging to the fringe political left. We need to replace Kroll and Shoemaker with more moderate Dems who take reasonable positions and base their oversight of CU operations in reality.
Click to expand...

Fingers crossed that there are connected and passionate Boulder and Denver based Democrats with the will and skills to make a difference.
 
DrunkRalphie said:
You got your way by an overwhelming majority yet you bitch and whine. That's what I fail to understand.
Click to expand...
Should have been a 9-0 vote. Stated objections had nothing to do with Mel Tucker or the contract. Some Regents chose to grandstand and piss all over what should have been a day of celebration of a new coach.

Shoemaker could have issued a statement about all the great work happening at CU on improving player safety -- after voting "yes". That statement would be in all the articles that get published & she'd do more to advance this cause by being on the same team as the other Regents, the AD, the Chancellor and the HC.

Kroll could have issued a statement about all the great work happening at CU on medical research and care along with how he believes that success in athletics will rally more donors for the university in general -- after voting "yes". That statement would be in all the articles that get published & he'd do more to advance this cause by being on the same team as the other Regents, the AD, the Chancellor and the HC.

But you seem to like partisan grandstanding even though it did needless harm to a positive PR opportunity for CU. Why?
 
Buffnik said:
Should have been a 9-0 vote. Stated objections had nothing to do with Mel Tucker or the contract. Some Regents chose to grandstand and piss all over what should have been a day of celebration of a new coach.

Shoemaker could have issued a statement about all the great work happening at CU on improving player safety -- after voting "yes". That statement would be in all the articles that get published & she'd do more to advance this cause by being on the same team as the other Regents, the AD, the Chancellor and the HC.

Kroll could have issued a statement about all the great work happening at CU on medical research and care along with how he believes that success in athletics will rally more donors for the university in general -- after voting "yes". That statement would be in all the articles that get published & he'd do more to advance this cause by being on the same team as the other Regents, the AD, the Chancellor and the HC.

But you seem to like partisan grandstanding even though it did needless harm to a positive PR opportunity for CU. Why?
Click to expand...
What needless harm? People continue to push this idea yet provide no concrete evidence for it.

Nothing changes the dynamics of running the football team whether the vote is 9-0 or 5-4.
 
DrunkRalphie said:
Two regents voting no has prevented Tucker from making hires? How?
Click to expand...
The perception nationally that CU and the CU administration are not serious about creating a top tier football program. That is what is preventing Tucker from making hires. The preception that the CU administration will turn on the CU football program at the first sign of trouble, that is what is preventing Tucker from making hires.

The regents had an opportunity to change the narrative. To push their agendas in a positive light. Instead they didn't. Instead they decided to make statements, that true or not, will be published in the Gazette and the Denver Post. Statements that will be discussed on Denver sports radio and local news shows. Programs that get distributed nationally by IHeartRadio and YouTube.

Most of this board is upset because it was simply stupid and pointless and a wasted opportunity.
 
DrunkRalphie said:
What needless harm? People continue to push this idea yet provide no concrete evidence for it.

Nothing changes the dynamics of running the football team whether the vote is 9-0 or 5-4.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with the comments made by the regents that voted "no"?
 
DrunkRalphie said:
What needless harm? People continue to push this idea yet provide no concrete evidence for it.
Click to expand...
Do you believe there is value in promotion, public relations or momentum?

What could have been a wonderful news cycle for CU and Coach Tucker is being dominated by the story now being about dissent and objection. I guess you like that for some reason.
 
DrunkRalphie said:
No and no. Full disclosure: I'm a registered unaffiliated voter in the state of Colorado.
Click to expand...
Nobody gives a **** about Democrat vs Republican here dude. There are mostly Democrats on this board ****ting on Kroll and Shoemaker for their decisions. This is 100% about them having no idea what they're talking about in their reasoning to voting No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top