Home › Buffzone Columnists
Woelk: CU staff optimistic, but far from satisfied
Two years ago, Dan Hawkins took over a program that required rebuilding from the bottom up. The reasons were many, but the bottom line was that the foundation of Colorado football had eroded -- dramatically.
Today, it's safe to say the program is once again on solid footing. A 6-6 regular season followed by a bowl loss to Alabama, improved depth across the board and what appears to be a solid recruiting class on the way are reasons for Hawkins and his staff to be optimistic when they look down the road.
STORY TOOLS
More Buffzone Columnists
- Woelk: Plenty of room for two backs in Buff attack
- Woelk: Hallucinations now in Karl's repertoire
- Woelk: Beijing Buffs provide nice reflection on Colorado
Share and Enjoy [?]
But no reason to be satisfied. Not by a long shot. As Hawkins noted Friday, the Buffs were a handful of plays from being 10-3 -- and the same number of plays from another 2-10 finish.
It will be up to Hawk and his staff to make sure that a few more of those plays turn out in their favor next season.
From a "culture" standpoint -- one of Hawk's favorite phrases -- the Buffs are no doubt turning the corner. The players have embraced the offseason conditioning program, they've bought into Hawkins' philosophy and they've already reaped some of the benefits.
Example: Last season, Colorado beat a top-10 team (Oklahoma) for the first time since 2001.
But the Buffs also let plenty of opportunities slip through their fingers.
Tops on the list? Try a very winnable game against Kansas, a team that capped a 12-1 season Thursday night with an Orange Bowl victory over No. 3 Virginia Tech. Guaranteed, if Hawkins watched the game, he had more than one flashback to that mid-October contest at Folsom Field, when a fumble near the goal line, a missed field goal and two interceptions helped KU escape Boulder with a 19-14 win.
Now throw in a game at Iowa State in which the Buffs blew a 21-0 lead, and it's easy to see why Hawk and his staff are anxious to finish the recruiting season on a high note and get started with spring ball (since you asked, it starts the third week of March).
Points of emphasis on the Buffs' front burner:
Continuing to improve depth -- and quality -- on the offensive and defensive line, on the corners and at quarterback. These are places Hawkins says define a team, and positions that CU must continue to improve if they are to take the next step.
Speed, speed, speed. Did we mention speed? Take a look at the bowl games this year -- in particular the BCS bowls -- and the biggest difference between winners and losers was the one thing folks say you can't coach. West Virginia ran Oklahoma ragged. Southern Cal ran through, around and past Illinois. Closer to home, the difference between Alabama and Colorado in that department was noticeable.
You can't coach it, but you can recruit it. The Buffs need to close the gap, literally and figuratively.
Running game, both defense and offense. Take a look at the top 25 teams in the nation running the ball and defending the run, and you'll find a strong correlation to the top 25 polls. The Buffs were 61st in rushing offense; 32nd in rush defense. Improve those numbers, and the Buffs could find themselves knocking on the door of the national polls again.
Turnover ratio. The Buffs gave up the ball 25 times last season and took it away 21 times. Even more telling is that seven of CU's turnovers came inside the opponents' 30-yard line. That's seven great scoring opportunities lost. Yes, the numbers are an improvement over last year, but not where Hawk and his staff would like them to be. (Since you asked: two of those turnovers inside the opponent's 20 came against Iowa State and Kansas -- two games the Buffs lost by less than a touchdown).
Continued improvement of program necessities, beginning with facilities. The program received a big boost in the last year with the addition of the practice bubble and the remodeling of the locker rooms. Next up: expanded space for position meeting, plus an improved salary structure for assistant coaches.
Folks, facilities are no different than on-the-field issues in college ball: if you aren't improving, you are falling behind. After years of stagnation, CU has taken big strides recently. The challenge will be to keep moving forward.
This, of course, is just a short list of the things the CU staff will be addressing in the future. For the next month or so, they'll be busy sewing up any loose ends with their recruiting class.
But don't think for a second that anyone at Dal Ward walked away from the just-completed season in any way satisfied. The foundation might be solid, but the rebuilding has just begun.
Posted by Ralphie2 on January 5, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
GO BUFFS!
Posted by Dr_VinniGoombatz on January 7, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Solid? Hum, I was just reading about the BLANK starter list. News flash; there ain’t nothing SOLID about the Buff FB squad WRT the 08-09 season except for the fact we fans have seen an improvement @ game time. I expect solidity to occur; I have reasonable hope backed up by the 07-08 stats that solidity will happen, but there is no evidence at this point that fluidity isn’t the case at present.
Posted by rswright on January 8, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cheerleader Neill, at it again. Tell us Neill, you say we are on a "solid footing" and "Next up: expanded space for position meeting, plus an improved salary structure for assistant coaches."
Where is the money to come from?
1. Students at CU? Well haven't they already loaned 12 million dollars to pay for football in 05 and 06? Maybe you want them to use their tuition money? Students have either seen their sports either eliminated or cut back so the facilities are inadequate and the coaches are the worst paid in the Big 12 to pay for football? Students are tapped out so tell us Neill, where is the money going to come from?
2. The fans from ticket sales? Come on,even Hawk says CU fans don't support the team unless the better teams are in Folsom. It is easy to sit in that warm comfortable press box and ignore the half filled stadiums.
Folsom holds 55,000 and only 12,000 is for students. That leaves 43,000 seats for our loyal fans. No one admits that CU doesn't have the fan base to afford a first rate program i.e. Nebraska, let alone raises. Having tapped out the students and with a fan base that is loud but doesn't support the program, where is the money to come from? Come on Neill show me the money!
Posted by william.nicholas on January 9, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
half-filled stadiums..? what games has rswright been to lately..?
Posted by rodrigo on January 9, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
None.
It's so much easier to create for him to create his own reality if he never leaves his ivory tower.
Posted by extrapoint on January 9, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
according to rswrong the only football fans are the few posters on this board and the entire student body is coming after us with pitchforks and torches.
Tomorrow night Angelina Jolie shows up at his front door naked
Posted by GoBuffs07 on January 10, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How can anyone be satisfied with a losing season.
Posted by rswright on January 10, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey guys, I didn't say it. Hawk did. Sorry if the what Hawk has to say hurts but its the truth. CU fans only buy tickets when one of the better teams like OU plays at Folsom.
Nicholas says I haven't been to the games. Well Hawk has been at every game. Rodrigo, I may live in an ivory tower but Hawk doesn't. You simply ignore what the Head Coach of CU football tells you. When you ignore what the Head Coach of CU football tells you, you should seriously consider it maybe you who is living in an ivory tower.
CU provides football basically for fans and the alums. Consider how much of the stadium is for students and where they sit. Folsom holds 55,000. 12,000 are for students which leaves 43,000 for fans. You can yell "Go Buffs" all you want but when the Head Coach tells you that you don't pay your fair share you haven't earned the right to yell "Go Buffs!". Look at Nebraska which has a losing season and troubles that equal CU but their fans fill the stadium every Sat. At Nebraska football pays for itself and every other sport. At CU the AD has to borrow 8 million from the students because you fans turned in their season tickets. Criticize me but you can't ignore Hawk. Or maybe you believe that the Head Coach of
Colorado football doesn't know what he is saying when he discusses CU football. From your comments, the truth is you all live in in an ivory tower where you ignore even what the head of CU football is telling you.
Posted by Seattle_Buff on January 14, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is nothing else to do in Nebraska. Bad analogy.
We just need to start winning. Very simple.
Posted by rswright on January 14, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If fans and alums won't consistently support football why should CU spend student money to support it?
Posted by cumba06 on January 14, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RS:
The athletic department borrowed $8 million, not $12. For 2007-2008 they are projecting a $2 million surplus. After paying debt service on the loan they will have money for projects. I know you are a big fan of Tennis and Track, but the money will first go to Football. Like it or not they need to have a program good enough to earn a positive cash flow from Dick Thorp's stadium expansion (ie. the better the team is the more likely it is they sell over 75% of the box/club seats and earn a positive cash flow from the project).
Posted by rswright on January 15, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cumba06:
First, the facts:
1. The students lent the AD 8 million in 05 in a direct loan and absorbed 4 million for items (on a temporary basis)previously paid for by the AD in 06. Total of 12 million in student money to support football.
2. The 2007-08 Budget projects football revenue at 11,173,600. The expenses at $9,600,950.
Projected football profit therefore is 1,572,670 not 2 million.
More importantly, you say that the money will be used for football specifically "to earn a positive cash flow from Dick Thorp's stadium expansion". CU pays 3.3 million a year in luxury box seats for the benefit of the fans and alums. But,according to the Head Coach of CU football,the fans and alums don't buy tickets, except when the better teams like OU play. If the fans and alums supported the team by buying tickets the profit would be a lot more than 1.5 million,but they don't. So,assuming football profit of 1.5 million, and the payment on the luxury box seats is 3.3 million, the AD has to pay 1.8 million for luxury box seats for fans and alums.
So the question still remains:If the fans and alums don't support the team why should CU use student money to support it?
Posted by cumba06 on January 16, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RS:
First the Facts:
https://www.nmnathletics.com/pdf2/937...
This is a link showing revenues and expenses per sport for the entire athletic department for 2007 in an audit form created by the AD as of 10/31/2007. As you can see football will bring in just over $23 million, and cost just over $11 million. This does NOT include items such as the Nike contract. The total budget for the athletic department is just under $40 mil, and total revenue is just over $42.3 mil. The budget INCLUDES the debt service for the new addition to the stadium, so there will be an extra $2 mil.
Hawkins did say that CU fans will come to watch good football. This isn't limited too just the other team. By improving the CU team itself you will get a bigger draw to the stadium. This past year over 300K tickets were sold to Folsom filed (over 50k a game average). With the team making a bowl, showing improvement, I would bet that you will see an increase in season tickets for 08, and more revenue for the entire athletic department.
Posted by rswright on January 16, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cumba06;
You cite that football revenues are 23 million and expenses are 11 million so the profit is 12 million. The truth is that the 12 million profit is based mainly on distributions from the Big 12. Only 9 million out of 23 million in football revenue is from ticket sales.The primary source to indicate fan support is revenue from ticket sales.
As only 9 million is from ticket sales, the truth is that fans don't pay enough to allow the team to walk on the field,let alone pay for all the expenses of football and all the other sports as they do at Nebraska and OU. CU has reduced its contribution to 4% of the budget because football is supposed to pay for itself and the other sports.
When the fans didnt support the team, the AD paid for football by borrowing 8 million from the students and cutting back or eliminating their sports. So before you cite how much money football brought in pay back the 8 million football borrowed in 05, assume the obligations the students assumed in 06 and restore the student sports that were decimated all because the fans didn't support the team. As CU provides football mainly for you fans, it is only fair that you pay enough to allow the team to suit up and walk on the field.
Posted by cumba06 on January 16, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RS:
I understand your argument, but disagree with your accounting. The revenue from football does create a $12 million surplus (note: the money from the Big XII is not a gift, it is the payout from the TV contract, and CU had 10 games on the tube this year), but that money is used to support volleyball, soccer, & other sports. The revenue from football is combined with all other sports to create the athletic department, and that is why the total surplus is $2 mil. The athletic department’s first obligation is to current sports and debt outstanding. By paying for all sport, and the current debt service they then have a choice with the remaining $2 mil. I do hope they pay back $1MM of the 8 they borrowed, and use the rest to upgrade facilities. If you take $8 mil of the extra $12 that football generated this year, all you do is make the Athletic department look for $6 mil from other sources to pay for the sports it has. It doesn’t make financial sense to do that. It will take a many years at this rate to pay back the University (I have no idea what or if there is an interest rate on the loan). I agree with you that a few thousand extra people going to football games will help out tremendously. Also, selling out the club level and all the boxes will give a huge financial boost. They may be able to pay back the University within 2-3 years then. At that time they will be able to look at bringing back other sports.
Posted by cumba06 on January 16, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RS:
I understand your overall frustration with the workings of this. If the revenue from the football team declines then men’s tennis gets cut. Unfortunately that is the situation the athletic department is in (not just ours, but most across the country). Nationally football is the big money generator. From ticket sales, to TV contracts, to stadium advertisers, official sponsors, concessions/parking, and donations, football brings people to the campus. It seems rational that if the football team does poorly and revenue drops, then the football team should suffer. In this day and age it won’t happen. Since football can bring in the most revenue, football will be the last team to suffer.
Posted by rswright on January 17, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The question remains: why should a University dedicated to education of students provide football for fans and alums who don't support the team?
The conclusion is this will continue until the University spends money which should be used for academics on football. This is predicted by the NCAA. Then the public outcry will force CU, and most Universities, to return to purpose of a University that is, education. Then if fans and alums want football they will have to pay for it.
Fans have it cozy now. CU steps in with student money so they can yell "Go Buffs" without paying for the privilege.
You theorize that a few thousand fans will solve the problem. Wrong.There will always be something needed for football to keep up with the Jonses, i.e. Nebraska and OU. but which the fans and alums don't pay. Proof? Not only is this the history of CU football (1980 and 05 and 06)this year, the AD has a profit. The first thing the fans (and Neill) want is to give a raise to the assist. coaches. How about paying the money back football borrowed from the students or giving them adequate facilities to compete or to the coaches who are the least paid in the Big 12.
This could be accomplished if the AD didn't spend money on the luxuries of football i.e. flat screen TV's,new potty for Hawk, renovated locker rooms for football and basketball, when he doesn't provide the other sports with decent facilities for competition.
Posted by cumba06 on January 17, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RS:
What I am attempting to point out to you is the business side of this. I am either not making myself clear enough, or you are chosing to ignore the issue.
The University does NOT pay for football. If you cut out all other sports and only had football, then the University would get a positive return EVERY YEAR. The luxuries of football and basketball are done because they are (or in basketballs case can be) positive revenue generators. Since football is the cash cow, their needs come first. It is standard pecking order theory, you take care of the had that feeds you. Top recruits, that people want to pay to watch compete, look for programs with good facilities. This is the nature of the beast.
If you can get 5,000 people to spend $20 per track meet, I am sure they would build great facilites for them. The fact is all other sports expenses exceed revenues. This means they NEED football to be good in order for them to exist.
Posted by rswright on January 18, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"If you cut out all other sports and only had football, then the University would get a positive return EVERY YEAR."
Sorry you can't talk the business side of sports when dealing with a University. The argument which you make and has been repeated endlessly and wrongly is that if it weren't for football bringing in lots of money there would be no other sports. This is used as a justification for excess spending on football i.e Flat screen tv's, Hawk's new potty. Those people don't appreciate the nature of the beast. Look at it this way, if football didn't bring in a dime so long as CU is a Dyou would always have the non revenue sports. Reason: CU is a Division 1 school in the NCAA. By doing so it agrees to be bound by the NCAA rules. The first rule is that every Division 1 school must have 16 varsity teams (to compete in a bowl game). CU now has the minimum number of teams to be a Division 1 school. That is, 16 teams. So if CU does not have a golf team it will not have a football team no matter how much money football brings in. Conversely, CU will always have 16 teams even if the football team didn't bring in a dime, so long as CU wishes to remain a D1 school.
The economic argument that the minor sports should be grateful to football for their very existence and are bottom feeders doesn't work at a University. CU is not a football franchise like the Broncos. The product which the Broncos achieves is an economic profit. At CU and every other University the product is education. In the first paragraph of the NCAA rules to which CU agrees, it states that sports are paramount to a students education. At a University it should make no difference which sports bring in the cash because without each of them there would be no sports at CU. There is no reason why Hawk should get a new potty when the non revenue sports don't have any plumbing at all. Now if the luxuries brought in some money to the AD ok. Render unto football that which is necessary to make a profit but flat screen TV's don't make the team perform better.
When the Big 12 officials come to town and see how woeful the facilities are it will lead to a complaint to the NCAA. Then see how far Hawk's new potty gets CU.
Posted by cumba06 on January 22, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RS:
I am sorry you don’t like the way budgets for CU sports are made, and the priority of capital spending. Unfortunately many people, including the AD, felt it was necessary to upgrade football facilities first. The statement that football shouldn’t get money before other sports is your own personal opinion and not a fact when it comes to budgeting.
I do have a solution for you. You can contact the AD and set up a fund for alumni such as yourself to donate money to that will only be used to upgrade other facilities than football. When you donate money to the AD you can ear mark it for specific projects (ie. the practice bubble). I am sure the athletic department would be thrilled to have an alumni help to pull in funds for those projects.
Posted by rswright on January 22, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks,money is sent to my sport of choice.
It is apparent that you are no longer arguing that football has an innate right to luxuries while the other sports languish simply because it makes money. It is apparent to you that the decision to spend money lies with the AD. "many people, including the AD, felt it was necessary to upgrade football facilities first". No problem, the AD should spend all the money necessary on football to make a profit because CU expects football to pay for itself and all the other sports (why it has reduced it's contribution to approx.4% of budget). But luxury flat screen tv's, Hawk's new potty,refurbished locker rooms, don't add to that profit. Mike is wrong in spending money just to keep up with the Jones's'ie. OU and Nebraska; first, because we can't compete with them re the amount of money they have to spend and second keeping up with the Jones's doesn't make a profit. Comparing football's luxuries with the basics needed by the other sports, Mike has let down CU, its athletes and their coaches by not taking some of the money spent on for football's luxuries, to provide the the basics for the other sports and to prevent our coaches from being the worst paid in the Big 12. When you yell "Go Buffs!" remember you are also yelling for teams who have no place at which to compete (Golf), the facilities are so inadequate that the Big 12 officials threatened to prohibit competition (track) and no plumbing or shelter at their facility (tennis). He eliminated a Nationally ranked men's tennis (cost of 300,000) and now spends an equal amount for football's luxuries. When you yell "Go Buffs!" you are also rooting for more than just football, you are rooting for CU's teams,athletes and coaches for whom Mike does not provide the basics while the football team watches its flat screen tv's.
Posted by cumba06 on January 22, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RS:
I have never stated that I do not agree with the spending decisions of the AD. You are only inferring that. The fact is I believe that football should have its facilities upgraded first, and that upgrading facilities means to put them on par with all other national football powerhouses.
We seem to be going in a circle. You keep brining into question the financial stability of the athletic department. Question for you, how do you increase revenue? What is you long term capital spending plan? And how will the two previous questions go along with allowing the AD to pay back the $8 mil borrowed? IT is easy to pass
It is easy to pass judgment, or disagree with the manner in which the AD has chosen to solve the problem. I would like for you to state how you would solve the problem.
Last, when I yell “Go Buffs” I cheer for all sports, including CU Rugby.
Posted by rswright on January 23, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah,but do you send your money to CU Rugby?
But whether you agree with the AD was not the issue. The issue was whether football because it makes money (and so without football there would be no other sports)it should be addressed first. It was shown that football is CU only one of 16 sports which the AD is required to provide. Also there are so few sports at CU that without golf there would be no football. Therefore it has no innate right to be addressed first.
Now you state, it is the decision of many others and the AD to address football first, that counts. There is no dispute there. Mike is the AD and the decision on how to spend the money rests with him. However because he has obligation to provide the basics to 16 sports, when he provides luxuries to one and doesn't provide the basics to the others something smells. When any team is not getting the basics the AD is failing in his obligations to CU and its students.
If you go on the basis that football makes money and can spend the money anyway it wants, then the question is does football have no obligation to support any other sport than football?
Well, the AD is required to provide 16 sports and who is going to pay for the 15? You can't have it both ways like Mike and the cretins who write here would like it. At a University, the AD, unlike the GM at the Broncos, is required to provide 16 sports. As he is required to provide 16 sports there is no right to spend all the money on football. I know you one sport wonders don't like it but that is the difference between rooting for a University and a football franchise, which is what you would like CU to be.
But to answer and not avoid your question, how do you increase revenues?
You do that by winning. CU fans do not support a losing team. I.E. 05, like they do at OU and Nebraska. CU has a fickle fan base at best. Mike papers the stadium and even Hawk says CU fans only support the team when the better teams like OU come to play. So winning is the answer to your question. Anything that directly contributes to wins is necessary. Anything that doesn't contribute to wins is not necessary. Flat screen tv's and Hawks' new potty do not directly contribute to wins. They are luxuries provided at OU and Nebraska because they can afford them. When CU provides them,
it merely hides the fact that CU can't afford them and the CU fans don't support the team like they do at Nebraska or OU, facts the recruits will learn soon enough.
Posted by cumba06 on January 23, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I donate $100 dollars a year to CU Rugby. It isn't a ton but about 20 of us do so, and it helps buy uniforms, and other equipment. I remeber playing and having to buy my own uniform, and that really sucked. Now I try and help out the younger guys so they don't have to.
Posted by rswright on January 24, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Way to go cumba06!
I would like to know the amount of donations to the non revenue sports because I have a feeling without them they would not survive. I remember buying my own equipment. CU provided "not to be taken from gym" sweatshirts.
Posted by buffalo_flyer on January 25, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey RS, lets talk about the bubble again, when the number one recruit in the country says he wouldn't have considered CU without the bubble, does that make it a little more clear that this was a necessary upgrade?
as for Nebraska supporting their losing team, does that include walking out in droves at halftime, booing the team and calling in death threats to the coach?
your arguments are unwinding faster than the football money is pouring into CU coffers
Posted by rswright on January 26, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are talking about Scott he is coming here, maybe, because of Josh, not the bubble. Wait until signing day.
Nebraska fans may leave at half time but they come back, week after week, year after year. In comparison,listen, to the head coach of CU football. Hawks says that CU fans only buy tickets when the better teams like OU play. When your head coach is telling you the truth about CU fans you had better listen. In 05' CU fans turned in their tickets in droves at the same time they were screaming for Barnett's head. This ended up with the AD having to borrow 8 million from the students.
Compare that with Nebraska where football pays for not only for itself but every other sport. The conclusion is that there is no comparison.
Buffalo_flyer, if as you say " money is pouring into CU coffers" tell us, why doesn't the AD pay back the loan on which he has never made a payment? Tell us "if money is pouring into CU coffers "why are the non revenue sports are either eliminated or don't have the basics to compete? If "money is pouring into CU coffers" why are our coaches the worst paid in the Big 12. Come on, buffalo_flyer, tell us or your silence will tell us the truth.
Posted by buffalo_flyer on January 27, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
keep cutting and pasting RS, you're a broken record/scratched cd, your facts are so off its not even worth the time debating you
Posted by rswright on January 27, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
buffalo_flyer:
When you say things,are invited to state your facts behind them and don't, there is nothing to support what you say.
It is documented fact that the students bailed CU football out of an 8 million dollar deficit (4 million for Barnett, 1.75 million for Hawk, and 3.3 million for your luxury box seats). It is a documented fact that in 05'CU fans didn't support football by turning in their season tickets in droves adding to the deficit. Like most you yell "Go Buffs!" and conveniently forget that the students are paying the bills for your fun. So before you criticize Nebraska fans (for any other reason than they come from Nebraska)look to your own house first.
Posted by rswright on January 28, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Before you criticize Husker fans (for any other reason than they come from Nebraska, read what Buff 75 says:"I can only hope that CU fans and media develop a sick case of Husker religion for our buffs."
This on top of our Head coach telling you that CU fans don't buy tickets unless one of the better teams are playing.
What does it take for CU fans to learn?
CU fans must support the team, win or lose, buy tickets no matter who is playing and donate on top of buying tickets. When you don't (and I do mean you)you are not supporting the team. You put the AD in the position of having to rely on an uncle to recruit rather than CU itself.
Posted by rodrigo on January 28, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Get a life.
Posted by buffalo_flyer on January 28, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hey, no double posting!
Posted by rswright on January 29, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When you alums and fans don't support your team sufficiently that the AD doesn't have to borrow 8 million dollars from the students, then ask yourself, as a fan, do I really have a life or are just dependent on the students to give me one.
Posted by buffalo_flyer on January 29, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you're not even making sense anymore! but congratulations on keeping that post short enough to read easily, when you get real long winded, you lose readers
Posted by StopTheInsanity on January 29, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep, just as I thought. Any commentary longer than two sentences and the majority of posters can't maintain their attention long enough to decipher/understand what goes on in the business side at athletics.
Posted by buffalo_flyer on January 31, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
its not about maintaining your attention span, its frustration that posters take 3 paragraphs to repeat themselves over and over again
let me guess, Mr. Stop, you are another useless b-school grad...."you don't understand business" is a dead giveaway
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.