Posted by mulder1010 on December 15, 2007 at 2:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So true, so true. Look beyond what is going on and CU is on the right track with Hawk. An extension with a raise and the same with his assistants as well. This is going to be a very good staff and they should be compensated. This could be a special staff and it should be kept together.

Posted by walto_clown on December 15, 2007 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's show Coach Hawkins some "Hawk Love"! We can't pay Coach Hawkins and his staff what they're worth, we can only show how much we appreciate their talent and efforts. Go Buffs!

Posted by JJohnson95 on December 15, 2007 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did they not give McCartney an extension after '84? That could be interpreted as a commitment to avoid winning, but it turned out okay, ... in the end, ... sort of.

Posted by f8toblack on December 15, 2007 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"And they know that coaches who assemble that kind of talent are the coaches who win"

Ummm...see Callahan and Nebraska

Posted by noslackbc on December 15, 2007 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A successful program is a family/team effort. Staff job security should be a priority, especially if assistant coaches continue to be limited to one year contracts. How many legislators or regents would garner their living one year at a time, without looking elsewhere?

Posted by MDBuff on December 15, 2007 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Right again, Neill. Hawk has changed the culture of a program that cried out for it since the Barnett days, the team's record has improved drastically since last year, and its recruiting base has been significantly upgraded. When you refer to "CU officials", is it ultimately Bohn's call to make it happen? If not, who?

Posted by BuffMan6236 on December 15, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Geez Neill, "Michigan, Arkansas, UCLA, Ole Miss or Washington State" Thanks for taking us slumming with Washington State, Arkansas and Ole Miss. Those are three programs that are not exactly coaching heaven. If Hawk went to a program like that it would be a huge step down into coaching obscurity, hillbilly hell and deep south irrelevance, respectively.

But you are 100% correct that anyone who knows football, knows that Hawk is doing everything right. He's built community support, has the whole program focused on details, is pushing facility improvement (together with Bohn) along, is recruiting well and is bringing in young, smart coaches.

He's also building a big, tough O-line with big, fast running backs and excellent line backers. That tells you he wants to WIN the Big 12, not just run a pass-oriented spread like Kansas and Missouri and get man handled by Oklahoma with its run-balanced spread.

Two years from now, we are going to see a power-oriented run game with speed on the edges combined with a power oriented run stopping defense with (hopefully) speed at the corners. That will deliver consistent results and make us competitive in the Big 12 Championship games.

So, yes! Let's pony up more dough...serious dough and lock him down for an extension. He is the real deal, the perfect fit for Boulder; 100% football, but he'll still climb on a mountain bike and he is "edgy" enough to act like a local.

A nice extension will also help in recruiting.

Posted by rswright on December 15, 2007 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, epecially those who want a raise, where will the money for a raise come from?
Come on you one sport wonders, considering football ticket sales don't pay for football expenditures, tell us.
Or maybe you should admit, not only do you not know, you really don't care.
There is another possibility. Take more money from the coaches salaries of the other sports. Sorry, I forgot,Bohn's already thought of that one. CU ranks dead last in the Big 12 in salaries for salaries paid to 13 of its 16 coaches.

Posted by Ralphie2 on December 15, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I still like Hawk even if he's not winning. The program is so much more fun and fan-friendly under Hawkins. I see some very special teams in the future.

Posted by wes1315 on December 15, 2007 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is NOT the year to give him any kind of contract extension or raise!!! Hawkins is a community guy and this is the perfect time to find money and opportunities to get better facilities for all of our programs not just football. CU can show they are serios by giving him (and other coaches) the tools they need to have a top ranked program. It's not just about the salaries guys.

Posted by JAWS on December 15, 2007 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by f8toblack on December 15, 2007 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"And they know that coaches who assemble that kind of talent are the coaches who win"

Ummm...see Callahan and Nebraska

Hey - f8toblack - you are a 100% moron!!!! Nebraska and it's ticky-tacky administration went out and made a decision to hire a coach who was hated by his own players at OAKLAND ( see: scumbag players of all time) who had to be PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED from trying to pummel him physically because he is/was a first class ***hole!! What does that tell you about his charcter, yeah - he could recruit but his players once again despised him and didn't want to play for him! The difference is that Hawk, who had a rough albeit shortened first year of recruiting, pretty darn decent second year, and so far a GREAT third year is both assembling talent as well as coaching up kids who WANT to play football for him - he's a stud.... Give him that raise! GO BUFFS - BEAT the snot out of the 'other Callahan' that lying scumbag Saban and his cheatin' Tide!!! maybe he'll start looking for another job again too...

Posted by choderlos1741 on December 15, 2007 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To rswright: The football team grossed 27.5 million in revenue last year, and spent 12 million. If you are one of the dimwits that like to believe that football doesn't pay its way so be it, but you might want to avoid saying stuff like that on a public forum, because you don't know what you are talking about.

And since you are such a fan of sports besides football, consider what would happen to sports like womens soccer and volleyball without the 15 million the university makes off of football? And how exactly is the university going to put more money into those sports if football doesn't start competing for major bowls, selling more club seats, getting more sponsorship money, donations from boosters, etc.? Texas has huge budgets for all its non-revenue sports, great facilities for all its sports, and do you know how they pay for it all? The football team spends 18 million a year, but brings in 55 million. That's how you pay for soccer stadiums, track and field facilities, and higher salaries for guys like Bill Hempel and Mark Wetmore.

Posted by bzainthemd on December 15, 2007 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rswright,
Are we trying to get on the CU doesn't care about its other sports argument again? We already had this discussion before and your comments about this topic are irrelevent here. You are the only one who apparently doesn't get that big time sports pay for other sports at major universities. It's a fact of the business of college athletics. Hawk is doing great things here and once we start regaining our dominence in the BigXII and on the national level, Hawk is going to get mentioned every time a Michigan/OSU/Florida/USC etc... loses their coach. Let's lock him up now and show him that we support him and his staff. That will be the best move to gain the money needed for soccer/tennis/skiing etc...

Posted by BEL on December 15, 2007 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, give Hawk an extension and a modest raise to show him that we appreciate the job he has been doing. The raise should not be extravagant because Hawk is not extravagant. Hawk will always remain a low-maintenance, blue-collar type of guy -- albeit one with a bent for deep thinking. He has made a commitment to CU and will not be easily enticed to accept another job merely for higher pay.

Hawk is conversant about Maslow's theory on the hierarchy of needs, which postulates that after life's basic necessities have been met one can then focus on "self-actualization". Sorry if this sounds a bit pedantic, but knowing a little bit about someone's philosophy of life really helps in understanding and knowing that person. That being said, I believe that Hawk will choose to remain at CU for a long, long time.

Moreover, the size of the salary pool for assistant coaches should be increased to help retention. Hawk would undoubtedly prefer the latter to any increase in personal gain. In the past, he has purposefully negotiated a lower salary for himself in order to have a larger salary pool for assistant coaches.

It's going, going, and gone -- a home run! Not just one home run, but three home runs with the hiring of Hawk, McConnell-Miller, and Bzedelik. If there is one common thread, it is that all three are fabulous recruiters. They know that to compete for championships, they need to recruit the horses. When asked whether a team needs talented players to win a championship, Hawk replied, "You don't win the Kentucky Derby by riding a mule".

Posted by tad30062 on December 15, 2007 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Couldn't agree more, but I don't think Hawk is going anywhere. He loves CU and wants to make it a powerhouse again (same-scale as FL, Oh St, Michigan, UGA, etc.) Instead of giving him more money, the administration should continue to improve facilities to show Hawk that they are doing everything they can to be a top tier program.

Posted by GloryGloryColorado on December 15, 2007 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here goes rswright again. How many times do we have to go over this? FOOTBALL makes the money that supports all of CU's teams. I still haven't figures out what sport you are whining about, but football pays for it. So the better the FOOTBALL team does, the more money your marginal sport or club will get. Why can't you understand that?
Anyway, CU needs to put the checkbook down in Hawks office with a pen, back away, and let Hawk write his own check.

Posted by cubuffone on December 16, 2007 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Come on Neil! Yu are starting to scare us. Is Bohn giving you a cut off his check? Where is the money going to come from. Are we getting another bailout from the Campus?

Posted by buffman30 on December 16, 2007 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rswright, you want other coaches to be paid more. Send your donation to the athletic department and earmark your gift for the sport of your choice. Otherwise, pray for the Big XII to sign a multimillion dollar contract with The Tennis Channel to air women's tennis matches. Until then, stop whining.

Posted by SoCoBuff on December 16, 2007 at noon (Suggest removal)

Off topic but still a finacial question, anyone see the comments on scout.com about CU moving to the Pac-10. Apparently we were gonna bring CSU or Utah with us. Iowa St. and Mizzou were gonna jump to the Big 10. Sounded like a finacial win win between us and the Pac 10. Just curious if this rumor holds any water or if people were just bored and thought it up.

Posted by SnowBuff on December 16, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hope to god that means pac10 is getting a BigXII type TV contract... I want to see the buffs play in HD!! and more then twice a year...

But unless you are talking about the comments in the forums on that site, I cannot find what you are talking about...

There is ZZERO chance CU is leaving hte BigXII. Wish we could do so, I love the pac10, but god, their contract is awful.

Posted by SoCoBuff on December 16, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah it was a forum, must have just been the usual hear say. I agree Pac-10 games on FSN and the VS network are awful. It seems too bush league and the commentators are pretty bad as well.

Posted by AAF on December 16, 2007 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't understand why an extension must be done now. Why not start talking to Hawk and his agent about an extension after the bowl game, with the intention of signing something near the end of the '08 season? That way you show Hawk some respect and don't hamstring the program if things don't go as well as expected next year. As for salaries, it is ridiculous that CU is in the bottom 4 Big 12 schools for football pay when our stated goal is a national championship.

Salary info on link at top of this page:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colleg...

Posted by rswright on December 16, 2007 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"FOOTBALL makes the money that supports all of CU's teams." Again, we hear this myth. Wake up,
it was the overspending on football which caused the AD to go into debt. If you think it was golf or tennis, and not the payoff to Barnett of 3 million, 3.3 million a year for alums to sit in box seats and the loyal alums turning in their tickets by the thousands you haven't been reading Kyles articles on CU athletics all of which are available on the sports page. (talk about pearls among swine). Or read the NCAA report on Financial Responsibility in Intercollegiate sports wherein it states that 87% of AD are in debt because of overspending on football. What makes you think that CU is any different? When the myth doesn't work as here, another myth is floated that is, that the end of the rainbow football will sell out every game, gain national prominence and
translate into enough money that football will be able to pay for itself and all the other sports. But will never happen at CU. Why? Because the 13% of Universities who make money from football ie. have bigger stadiums and loyal alums (who don't turn in their season tickets when the team doesn't win). If and when football at CU brings in more money it won't be used by the present AD on other sports but will be spent to insure future success in football ie.this idea of raising the assist.coaches salaries is a prime example.

Now you one sport wonders want to raise the coaches salaries for football. How is Bohn supposed to pay these raises?
The truth is that Bohn has tapped out all of his sources of income. In his first year Bohn eliminated or cut back the other sports to the point where CU's coaches are paid dead last in the Big 12 Conference to help football. This year he got 4 million from the alums for a bubble. So where is the money to come from?
Well, it could come from the Regents who "lent"
Bohn 8 million two years ago.The money used to bail out the Athletic Department was money from student tuition, which is given to the University by students for education not to spend on flat screen TV's for the team and a new potty for Hawk. But so much for a loan, when it came to repaying it, Bohn couldn't even pay the first installment.The truth is that other than donations, there is no other source of income for Bohn to use for raises.
Now if you know some other source of income to pay these raises lets us hear from you. Or is it really that you have no plan to pay these raises but rather than admit it, you will continue to live in a make believe world where football pays for itself and all other sports. Either football pays for itself and all the other sports or there was overspending on football which caused the AD to have an 8 million dollar deficit. Don't let the truth get in the way of repeating this myth that football pays for iteself and the other sports one more time.

Posted by buffalo_flyer on December 17, 2007 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RS all you are doing is fueling hate for the tennis program, You cut and paste the EXACT same arguments over and over, maybe youre actually a golfer? hmmmm

as for salaries, let get a little perspective, these guys get raises that dwarf the average working joe's salary, so comparing them to other schools in the Big12 football factory is ridiculous. You want academics and a level playing field then move to the Pac10, Otherwise be content that CU will never be able to match up with the Texas's and Oklahomas in terms of coaches salaries.

CU should give Hawk an extension to send a message that we want to build our prgram the right way, without the cheating and scandals that are part of everyday life under stoops and brown

Posted by BEL on December 17, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RS Wright, it is true that the vast majority of athletic departments are operating in the red. However, you seem to forget that these same universities and colleges have consciously and willfully chosen to live with the deficits and continue funding their athletic programs. Ultimately, it comes down to a value judgment. What is the value or worth of having a football team? One has to consider all the tangible and intangible benefits to be derived and then weigh it against the costs. Although you certainly seem to be aware of the monetary costs, have you ever given thought to the possible benefits that might accrue which are not so easily quantified?

Evidently, the vast majority of universities and colleges seem to think that the benefits outweigh the costs. As an example, CSU-Pueblo, which eliminated its football program in the mid-1980s, has already made a conscious decision to reestablish its football program starting with the 2009 season. It has already hired John Wristen, former CU assistant coach, as its head coach. Mike Moschetti, former CU quarterback, has also been hired as an assistant coach. The students at CSU-Pueblo willfully voted to assess a student fee to be used for funding the football program. The community of Pueblo also voted to give $10 million towards construction of a new on-campus football stadium. What brought this about? Apparently, the students and folks in the community just felt that it was important to have a football team. They were cognizant of the costs, but decided to go ahead anyway. How a person or organization spends money is based, more often than not, upon value judgments as to what is subjectively important to that person or organization.

Posted by rswright on December 17, 2007 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"All you are doing is fueling hate for the tennis program".
You know the other sports don't get the necessities while football is getting the luxuries like those flat Screen TV's and Hawk's new potty. What you really hate is that someone reminds you of it.

You say we shouldn't compare salaries at CU with those of the Big 12.
If you want improvements like the new locker rooms because OU and Nebraska have them aren't you comparing facilities in the Big 12. If you compare facilities in the Big 12 why not compare salaries?

CU coaches make much more than the average Joe. This is simply untrue. The coaches at CU are not paid a decent salary on which to live and I have heard this complaint directly. If you have some stats that an average Joe let us hear them.

Posted by rswright on December 17, 2007 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bel;
Good points but one shouldn't believe them for a second. The reason why most Universities go into debt is not because of the intangibles but because the fans, alums and the media bring continous pressure on the AD and the Regents for more wins.
Now if the fans,alums and media absorbed the cost, either by donations, or ticket sales, no complaint. But they don't at CU or nationwide.
CU's fans come when there is no scandal, the team is winning and they like the coach and the AD. If the team doesn't win, they don't like the coach etc. they turn in their tickets by the thousands.There can be a lot of intangibles to gain from football but you can't pay the bills with intangibles. If Fans and Alums don't pay the bills,(and it is obvious at CU that they don't)then fans and alums have no argument that the University should use money given to it for education of its students on Flat Screen TV's for the football team.

You talk about students wanting football. Compare the size of the student section with that reserved for fans and fans and alums and you can see the respective interest of both. It is the fans and alums that care about the most about football. When was the last time you heard of student government meeting with the AD to demand more wins from the football team? The truth is that most students, if they care about football at all, care until their first 8 o'clock on Monday. Nor are they in a position to pay for more wins. The out of state parents pay 75% of CU's budget. Tell those parents that CU wants them to pay more than the $40,000. a year and contribute more money so the football team can have Flat Screen TV's and see how far you get. Everyone knows that football is part of a college experience and a Saturday afternoon in Folsom beating OU is a memorable experience. It is the obvious overspending that rankles. Especially when other students that are playing the other sports have no plumbing at their facilities or when the track field is in such poor shape that the Big 12.threatens to close it to competition. At the same time the football team gets new locker room and the coaches get new offices even the students recognize something is wrong.

Posted by buffalo_flyer on December 17, 2007 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We don't need to compare salaries of overpaid assistant coaches to exorbitantly overpaid assistant coaches, you missed the point...again

Posted by bzainthemd on December 17, 2007 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rswright,
Are you still talking? Seriously, you are a broken record. Obviously, you are the only one who thinks this way on this site and your long ramblings won't get anyone else to agree with you. The truth is that these other sports wouldn't exist without football and basketball. And you want the truth...most of us couldn't care less about some of these other sports. Tennis and soccor aren't what sell DirecTV subscriptions every weekend. Money talks in America and football sells. And I resent you saying that we only care when the team wins or there is no scandal. Who the hell are you to say that? I am a die hard Buff till the end, win or lose. When I was a student, I lived for the football games at Folsom. I still travel to see the games from the east coast. And don't kid yourself thinking that kids care up until 8am on Monday. I was a premed student and cared all the time and now as a physician, I still care. I'm sure most people agree. So stop offending us and stop killing this board with too much money for football nonsense. Become a Regent and change it or just stop talking.

Posted by rswright on December 17, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"FOOTBALL makes the money that supports all of CU's teams".

Again,

"If you are one of the dimwits that like to believe that football doesn't pay its way so be it, but you might want to avoid saying stuff like that on a public forum..."

Before you say that one "might want to avoid saying stuff like that in public" you might want to read what those who are paid to say it in public have to say. I quote Camera columnist, Ryan Thornburn, Buffzone, 3/23/07.
"Bohn's department was facing a deficit of nearly $7 million due to a number of factors, including buying out Gary Barnett's football contract, hiring Dan Hawkins and his staff, the rising costs of scholarships, and the lack of revenue from club seating following teh 2003 Folsom Field stadium expansion."

It is therefore a fact that Bohn, the AD, had a deficit. The Dept. didn't break even nor did it show a surplus, it lost 7 million dollars.
Now the next question is was that caused by football. The deficit was caused, according to Thornburn of a number of factors;the contract buyout for Barnett, the hiring of Hawk and his staff, the scholarship cost and the luxury box seats which didn't sell. It is apparant that these all related to football so if there was a deficit, the conclusion is that the 7 million dollar deficit was caused by football.

I maybe a dimwit, at least I read the Camera, especially Kyle's excellent series of articles in the Camera Aug.07)before I sound off in public. Had those writers above done so,
they would know the truth is that football, rather than paying for itself, and supporting all the other sports caused the deficit. And hopefully will no longer display their ignorance in public.

Posted by RalphieWyoWyo on December 17, 2007 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Whatever CU does, they better put a big buy out clause in the contract. You hear of coaches like Petrino and Rodriquez who sign extensions the year before then they are gone when big money comes a callin'.
A big buy out is the first priority on that sheet of paper Bohn!!!
...it could also pay off some debts if someone does buy him out...just a thought...

Posted by choderlos1741 on December 17, 2007 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To rswright:

I didn't say that the Athletic Department as a whole didn't have a deficit in a particular year, I said the football team makes money. Again, the numbers on a yearly basis are a matter of public record; the football team makes about 15 million a year. Even if in a particular year the we have to spend 2.5 mill to buy out Barnett that still means the football team made money, just not enough money to keep the men's tennis team. Saying that the football team caused the deficit in the entire athletic dept. is absurd; the cause of the deficit was all the programs that spend money and bring no money in. When the football team only makes 10 million net, sports like men's tennis have to go. So maybe making sure the football team is successful might seem like a good idea, right? So maybe paying competitive salaries for assistant coaches might be a good idea, right? And do you think Nike gives us $15 million in cash and free equipment a year for the exposure they get from our track team, as good as they are? Or volleyball?

Again, since you seem to have a yearning for men's tennis, I'll spell it out for you once again. Which schools have the most non-revenue sports, and fund them most lavishly? Schools like Texas, USC, Nebraska, etc. What do those schools use to pay for those non-revenue sports? Revenue from football(again, $55 million gross, $38 million net in the case of texas). Why do those schools have a lot of revenue from football? Because, over the long haul, they are winning programs. How do they have winning programs over the long haul? Not by b****ing about how much the assistant coaches get paid. And not by b****ing about having to build a practice bubble and renovating the locker room. And not by listening to people like you, rswright, who seem to think that running the football team into the ground would somehow mean more funding for sports like men's tennis, women's water polo, and maybe unisex ultimate frisbee or rhythmic gymnastics.

Posted by rswright on December 17, 2007 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear choderlos1741
Your analysis that football makes money makes no sense because is contrary to the actual way sports at a Division 1 school works and shows no interest in what CU is all about.

The Athletic Department of every Division 1 school nationwide administers at a minimum, 16 sports and shows a profit or a deficit based on all the sports it administers. Football is only one of 16 sports and as the profit and loss of the Department depends on all 16 sports, it makes no sense to determine a deficit or a profit on the basis of just one or two sports.

To prove that it makes no sense to consider football alone, ask yourself, why doesn't CU just eliminate all the non revenue sports and use all the money received for football.
Answer: CU, as a University, believes that it should have a minimum of 16 sports available for its students. It would always have 16 sports regardless of how much money football and basketball bring in. You one sport wonders don't understand that every Division 1 University believes that every student should have the right
to participate in sports at a Division 1 level as a part of a student's education. I know this means little to you but it does to the students who attend CU and who play the sports you have no compunction about eliminating or cutting back.
Ask the students that play these sports whether they feel CU's coaches (except for football and basketball)should be paid a decent wage rather than be the lowest paid in the Big XII. Until you realize football is only one of 16 sports and must be viewed the way the University does, you will just be displaying your ignorance and lack of interest in what is best for CU.

Posted by bzainthemd on December 18, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rswright,
Actually, your ignorance is shining through with your last post. No kidding CU and all universities want to have as many sports available for their students. What's your point? Should we bag the football team, the one team that makes money, to put the rest of our resources into sports that don't generate a dime? How much TV revenue does soccor, tennis, or track get? Next to nothing. How do these sports survive? Because the school has other ways to make money. One is football, and hopefully we can do what UT, NU, and USC do and splurge on our football team so that it can get the big TV contracts and bowl game revenues. If it weren't for football, our AD would be in a much greater debt than it is now and you wouldn't get your non-money producing sports. Good for your for reading. Guess what, we all can read too. But the rest of us can use reason to realize what is best for this university's athletic programs is to create the best football and basketball programs that we can. It's that simple.

Posted by MarquetteBuff on December 18, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rswright, I think you've officially lost this argument. Please stop posting.

Posted by archalon on December 18, 2007 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you MarquetteBuff.

Can I just throw in that there is expected to be a windfall of $27.50 from gate revenues of the cross country matches this year and golf is expected to gross over $16. Hope the AD spends it well.

I do wish that some of the many millionaires we sent to the NFL would poney up some funds. Imagine if each gave back just a few % of their wealth ? We'd be in the black for along time.

Posted by rswright on December 18, 2007 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Should we bag the football team, the one team that makes money, to put the rest of our resources into sports that don't generate a dime?"

Tell me where anyone said anything about bagging the football team. Spend as much as you want on items that actually contribute to the success of the team. But tell me how does 43 million for luxury box seats or Flat Screen TV's and Hawks new potty contribute to BCS standings. Can't you have a National Championship without luxury box seats, flat screen tv's? Well our 1990 team didnt have these luxuries and did pretty well. How can you justify 43 million dollar box seats not for students but for alums when the students(who really comprise CU)have no plumbing, no decent place to compete and their coaches are the lowest paid in the Big 12.

Now again if you fans and alums want to donate so football can have luxuries then no objection. But you don't. You run when the team doesn't win, there is a scandal or you don't like the coach. Proof? Does anyone want to deny this is exactly what happened at CU? No? Well I think you lost the argument on that one.

And what is the consequence of you fans not supporting the team in accordance with its new found standard of living. First, students lose sports and the Regents have to cough up with money given to it for tuition, in 2005 8 million and in money and relief of burdens, 2006 another 4 million. Well done fans and alums just as long as you can have a drink in your luxury box seats.

Read the NCAA Report on Financial Responsibility in Intercollegiate Sports and you will see the consequences of over spending on football and the fans and alums not paying to keep football up to the standard of living it is used to. It is student athletic programs first and next academic programs.

Your argument for football is based on how much money football brings in. If money is the object of collegiate sports, I asked a quesion previously. Why not just eliminate all non revenue sports and use all the income for football. No one has an answer? Why? Because it is obvious at a University sports are not offered students based on the amount of money they brings in. You won't admit there are other priorities than money because if you did, there is no justification for eliminating those sports for football's luxuries.

P.S. That the Athletic Dept. considers whether there is a profit or loss is based on all 16 sports and not just football, there is no argument. Just ignorance based on what you would like it to be.

Posted by choderlos1741 on December 18, 2007 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rs wright:

since your last post pretty much refutes itself, and since everybody is pretty much trashing it for me, I should just let it alone, but I won't.

Again, you refuse to see the point. We said football makes money. You came back and said "that's a myth" and I provided the actual numbers, which are a matter of public record, that prove you wrong. And if it doesn't make "sense" to you to consider football seperately, it makes sense to anyone with cursory knowledge of economics, business, or basic accounting principles. Lets try this again, shall we? Football makes money. The more money football makes the more money we have for sports that don't bring in revenue. The more the football team wins the more money it makes. The football team won't win unless we are competetive with other schools in facilities, salaries, etc. End of story.

And are you seriously deluded enough to think that we have varsity sports as an educational opportunity for the students? Do you think that any varsity sport at CU holds open tryouts for students who show up at CU and think, "I'm bored, I think I'll become an elite sprinter or golfer"? This isn't high school, the varsity athletes in any sport are elite athletes recruited to compete at the highest level for the glory of the university. And they can't do that without funding, and that comes from the net revenue gained from a successful football program, just like USC, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, LSU, etc. So what is best for CU, it seems to me, is that we do everthing within the bounds of ethical and responsible behavior to win in the sports that bring in revenue to pay for excellence across the board. I'm only a two degree alumnus of the University of Colorado but I think THAT'S what CU is all about: Excellence.

And by the way, I read the daily camera too, and while I agree that they are paid to write for the paper, they are not paid to do my thinking for me. I assess the proven facts and think for myself, as any CU graduate should. Now rswright, please stop posting. You're just embarassing yourself.

Posted by buffalo_flyer on December 18, 2007 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

to summarize RS' stance: too much has been spent on frivolous upgrades for football at the expense of minimal requirements for other sports, i.e. plumbing.
true or not, frivolous or strategic, we all need to recognize that CU will be in a much better place if we all start digging a little deeper and at a minimum, buy one ticket to the bowl game.
ONE TICKET, sell it out! get behind your Buffs

Posted by bzainthemd on December 18, 2007 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said guys. Rswright just doesn't seem to get it. We all are smart enough to read and we all can make judgements on our own. Now, rswright, I'm not a millionaire, so I can't personally fund the football team the way you think that us fans should. Furthermore, I said it once and I'll say it again. Who the hell are you to say that we bail on this team when things are bad? 2-10 last year, and I supported all I this team and Hawk the whole time. Everyone else I know did the same. I live for the Buffs. I'm proud of our university. I do go to games, from the east coast and go to bowl games. That's what I can do. But how's this....

Why don't you pony up the money for your tennis team to get them the plumbing that you claim they lack? C'mon big spender, pony up the money. Why don't you personally finance the soccer team cause you sure think that we should finance the football team. I'll tell you what, the day you finance your sports to upgrade their facilities to get them what you think they should have, I'll do the same for the football team. Until then, just stop talking cause nobody will ever agree to your dimwitted logic.

Posted by rswright on December 18, 2007 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you buffalo_flyer.

However you will not get even that concession from these one sport wonders who refuse to admit "too much has been spent on frivolous upgrades at the expense of minimal requirements for sports. i.e. plumbing. Nor will they admit that the elimination of sports and the 8 million dollar bailout from students was caused by football.
I can quote the Camera including Ryan Thornburg,Kyle, and the NCAA to that effect that overspending on football put our Atheltic Department and others nationwide into debt but our fans know better.
Bohn says that 87% of Athletic Departments go into debt but our fans know better.
When the A&S department determines whether it had a deficit it looks at all the programs it administers, rather than just one, but our fans know better.
When it is obvious that CU provides sports for its students because it is a University and not on the basis of
which bring in money,remember our fans know better.
But remember these are the same fans which caused the deficit by turning in their tickets by the thousands.
Remember that these are the fans who don't object to "frivlous upgrades at the expense of minimal requirements for other sports.i.e. plumbing".
Remember these are the fans for whom CU borrowed 43 million to build luxury seats and who returned the favor by letting them sit empty.
Remember these are the fans that let the students pay the 8 million dollar deficit they caused by screaming for Barnett's head.
Remember it was alums who held that infamous party which ended up in a scandal for CU.
Then ask yourself whether these fans are really acting for their own interests or on behalf of the students at CU.

Posted by cubuffone on December 18, 2007 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

not a single $ will come from the NFL because when those kids are here in school the school does nothing for them. Oh sure they have a scholarship but they earn that scholarship by giving their sweat and blood on the field. They have no obligation whatsoever so stop demanding!

Posted by choderlos1741 on December 18, 2007 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great rswright, keep quoting opinions from the NCAA, that'll win the argument. And keep insulting CU's fans, I'm sure that'll help you too. But lets take some of your sillier points, just for fun:

"Remember it was alums who held that infamous party which ended up in a scandal for CU"
FALSE; the infamous party was thrown by students, the same students that ended up suing CU.

"Remember these are the fans that let the students pay the 8 million dollar deficit they caused by screaming for Barnett's head." Gary Barnett was a failure as a head coach, he couldn't win and he didn't discipline his players. Are you saying that Gary Barnett should have been kept? Seriously?

"Remember these are the fans for whom CU borrowed 43 million to build luxury seats and who returned the favor by letting them sit empty."
My season tickets, rswright, are in section 215, if you must know. The luxury boxes were actually sold out, and the club seats directly below them were 80% full.

"But remember these are the same fans which caused the deficit by turning in their tickets by the thousands." I kept my season tickets rswright. But you just made our point. When the football team seemed to be going nowhere, people took their money elsewhere. But now that we have a coaching staff with drive and pride in the university, and real leadership, almost every game was sold out this year. Maybe we should make sure that they stay and have the tools to be successful?

"When it is obvious that CU provides sports for its students because it is a University and not on the basis of which bring in money,remember our fans know better." Again, this isn't high school. CU doesn't have varsity sports, any varsity sports, for any other reason than to bring glory to the university. Varsity athletes are recruited to CU for that express purpose. And if you seriously think that money doesn't play a role in which sports stay and which sports go, recall why the tennis team was eliminated: because Mike Bohn gave tennis fans several months to pony up the money to keep the tennis team for two years and they couldn't do it. And since the attendence at tennis matches was near zero, that wasn't much of a shock. Rebuilding the mess left by Dick Tharp started with hiring a coach that we can believe in, and then getting donors to build the bubble, and renovating the locker room so that top football talent will want to play here, etc. If you want to call us one sport wonders because we think that we should make sure that the revenue producing sport at CU remains competitive enough to keep bringing in revenue so be it. The only way non-revenue sports will get better facilites at CU is for the football team to become a top-ten program again without embarassing the school. That means a football coaching staff that can get that done is worth paying competitive salaries to keep.

Posted by MarquetteBuff on December 18, 2007 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

rswright,

To paraphrase your argument: "The athletic department as a whole lost money in 2005 and 2006. If various upgrades to the football facilities and Folsom Field and the buyout of Barnett's contract had not been done, the athletic department would have been in better financial shape during those years. Spending money on these 'luxuries' is irresponsible anyway, with so many other sports lacking basic necessities."

Did I get that right? If so, I guess that is a legitimate point of view, although I don't agree with it.

Here's why. Revenue producing sports should get first priority because they must remain competitive to continue to produce revenue. Investing in football facilities and the coaching staff will result in a more competitive team on the field which will result in better attendance and more donations. Increased revenue can then be spent on facilities upgrades for non-revenue producing sports. That's the idea anyway.

Posted by rswright on December 19, 2007 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No one ever said anything about depriving the football team of anything essential. But not one person writing here will admit that maybe buying luxuries for the football team when the other sports lack essentials maybe an example of over spending on one sport. You one sport wonders should really wonder how will the other sports "bring glory" to CU without plumbing or when their facilities or are not decent enough to host competition.

What also amazing is the sentiment from the writers here that football is essential but the other sports are just frills to exist or not depending on football profits. Remember if CU did not have golf it would not have football either no matter how much income football produces.

Also, anyone even Neill who believes that the money which football makes is a profit should examine how the Athletic Department works. The AD is charged with administering 16 sports.
Whether there is a profit or not depends on all 16. As football is only one sport and since the Athletic Dept. administers 16 the status of one sport does not tell you whether Bohn had a profit or deficit. It is the status of the 16 sports by which the Athletic Department determines whether there is a profit. In the context in which Bohn, the University, the sports writers and the NCAA speak to say that football made a profit is meaningless. It is a myth perpetuated by fans to justify overspending on one sport.

Finally, those truly loyal CU fans
are the ones who kept their season tickets. But just as many did turn in their tickets because we had a losing season,scandal, etc. We simply do not have enough truly loyal fans.
Nebraska goes this last five years went through (very enjoyably)the typical college turmoil but every game is still a sell out. At Nebraska the AD has a profit because football sellls out every game. In contrast even in the last two years, let alone under Barnett, CU fans bailed by the thousands. Proof? You have a short memory if you forget that Bohn had to give away tickets for the Kansas game last year to make the crowd look good for TV.Had we had enough loyal alums and we could have weathered the perfect storm of 05.But the evidence is we don't and this has ever been the case at CU. (at least since the 50's).
When we have the fans our competition has maybe we can afford the same luxuries.

Posted by rodrigo on December 19, 2007 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Boring. Get over it.

Posted by MarquetteBuff on December 19, 2007 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bro, stop hatin.

Posted by rswright on December 19, 2007 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey these discussions teach a lot to everyone.

By the way choderlos1741 if football really makes money who at football writes the checks for football? Answer: no one. Football is just one program out of 16 and hopefully, the AD makes financial decisions based on whether the entire department makes a profit not just football.

Rodrigo,sorry you feel that a discussion on how your football team works is boring. But don't worry, I'll stop posting when you go to a CU sports event i.e. a football game and it doesn't bother you that you find no plumbing but a little green house with an unpleasant odor and a cold wind.

Posted by buffalo_flyer on December 20, 2007 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

new material please, We're falling asleep here

Posted by bzainthemd on December 20, 2007 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No rswright,
You're not teaching anyone anything except that you fail to have insight into the big picture and like to offend real CU fans. We all want CU to succeed at everything. This is a dead subject and obviously you are the only one who feels differently than every other poster on this board. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Posted by rodrigo on December 21, 2007 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

RS, it's not the discussion, it's the fact that you can't seem to let it go. You've made your point - over and over and over. Same point. Time and time again. Just happens that pretty much everybody else here disagrees.

And for what its worth, I was offered a wrestling scholarship to CU a week before the program got poleaxed. Call it the Chuck Fairbanks effect. The next day I moved on by walking on somewhere else. I survived. So will you.

Posted by cubuffone on December 21, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Some facts for you guys. Only 32 of the 40 luxury boxes have been sold for the last 5 years. Of the 2000 club seats slightly more than 1/3 are actually sold. The rest of the crowd you see is what the film industry calls "props". Of the 52000 stadium seats rougly 12000 are student seats, of the remaining 40000 about half are sold as seasons and the rest are empty. Do the math.

Posted by buffalo_flyer on December 21, 2007 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

actually 39 of 40 were sold this season, but lets do the math using just 32 and NO club seats and No general admission seats, thats 16 million dollars.....just this year

Posted by cubuffone on December 21, 2007 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures but even assuming they all sold at the full 50K/year that would only be $1.6mil from suites but say 39 sold which we know is not true that would mean $1.9mil. Add 700 club seats at an average price of $2000 that gives you an additional $1.4mil meaning tops $3.3mil from luxury seating. Add another $7.2mil in stadium season tickets and you get $10.5 mil. Add in single game sales which were poor for roughly $2.7mil you get to $13.2 Add in another $3.1 in required donations that puts you at $16.3mil. You know what the budget for the year is? We don't even cover half of it from sales revenue. Hence the need for further bailout from the campus. In short we are bleeding badly and it ain't pretty.

Posted by rswright on December 21, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

choderlos1741 on December 18, 2007 says

"My season tickets, are in section 215, if you must know. The luxury boxes were actually sold out, and the club seats directly below them were 80% full.

It appears these facts simply aren't true based on later posts to wit;

"Only 32 of the 40 luxury boxes have been sold for the last 5 years. Of the 2000 club seats slightly more than 1/3 are actually sold. The rest of the crowd you see is what the film industry calls "props". Of the 52000 stadium seats rougly 12000 are student seats, of the remaining 40000 about half are sold as seasons and the rest are empty. Do the math."

It appears,Cherodos1519, that the 80% of club seats you see full are give aways. Next time you look around at the giveaways "Remember these are the fans for whom CU borrowed 43 million to build luxury seats and who returned the favor by letting them sit empty" was the truth.

Posted by Bama1221 on December 27, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok in the sense of fair play n such..and cause i cant stand pretentious little jerks like rswright...who run thier ignorant snobbish mouths about"spending too much" on football or "football dont make money" bs...cause thats what it is bs.....Our football team last year had a PROFIT...GET THIS..PROFIT OF 30 million dollars....so dont listen to fake football fans and academic elitest like rswright and the like...cas they dont know what they are talking about..when it comes to ...ULTRA-ELITE LEVEL college football...and if you guys are complainin about texas and oklahoma...and you wanna win like them...take some advice from a fan of a ULTRA-ELITE program..and tell them to shut up and go away.....and spend as much as you want to make your program great.....ok ....trust me ..dont listen to people like ....rswright..they aint real foootball fans anyways and they really dont care..despite allll their endless protesting on your forum...trust me guys. Roll Tide!

Posted by GoBuffs07 on December 28, 2007 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hawkins hasn't even beat Iowa State yet in 2 years. Lets see if this is real or not before giving him an extension. If he loses to Alabama we've had 2 losing seasons in a row that hasn't happened in colorado since the 80's. Its too soon.

Posted by oz_in_cali on December 29, 2007 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow! Just when I thought rswright had put the soapbox away in the garage or used it for kindling, here he comes with his tired rant. I, like Buffalo_flyer can see some of the logic behind my repetative friend's complaints about waste, but the tangible results and paradigm shift we have seen at CU since Hawk's arrival speak louder than any sad repetition.

Having said that, I think BEL and AAF have it right in suggesting that we can let Coach Hawkins know that his efforts are appreciated without just throwing money at him (not right away, at least). Personally, I think that Hawk would probably rather see the university's commitment manifest in other ways besides his own salary (i.e. seeing his assistants are being taken care of, commitment to facilities, etc...). My personal belief is that, like many of the professors at CU who could easily make more money somewhere else, Hawkins is genuinely commited to the university and community and realizes that no matter what any of the crybabies say, Boulder is a special place to live and CU is a pretty special place to work (in spite of its foibles). Those of us who have firsthand knowledge of this, know it to be true.

GO BUFFS!!!

Posted by IAM4CUINIOWA on December 29, 2007 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey GoBuffs07,
Just so you know, Hawkins and the Buffs beat ISU last year in Boulder. I was there. It was one of our 2 W's.
Just FYI.
DC

Posted by IAM4CUINIOWA on December 29, 2007 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and forgot!
Go Buffs !!!
Shoulder to Shoulder!
Roll the Tide tommorrow night!!!
Buffaloes stampede the little pink elephants!
GO BUFFS!!!