NOW Will Colorado Buffaloes Start Caring About Football Again?

Ah, the Colorado Buffaloes. They were once a football powerhouse.

Of course, that was back when they had a university, administration, and local community that generally reflected a Midwest that included Big 10 (Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, Wisconsin) and Big 8/Big 12 (Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Kansas State) athletic powerhouses. Oh yes, and Notre Dame.

The administration and community prized doing what they could to identify and retain the best possible coaches and athletes. They gave the football program the tools to succeed.

But that was then.

Remember the "oh yes, and Notre Dame" comment? It was more than just a dismissive crack at the Fighting Irish. 

Many Fighting Irish supporters believe their university's lack of competitiveness on the football field coincided with an administration that became primarily concerned with emulating elite northeastern universities.

While this crowd overstates its case, you can't ignore that A) ND's entrance requirements for athletes are far higher than they were when the school was winning titles and B) the northeastern college football scene hasn't had much going on lately.

So, it is a small wonder that when Tyrone Willingham was introduced as their new head coach, this crowd rightfully questioned Notre Dame's commitment to championship football.

So let's go back to the Colorado Buffaloes.

The university has done their level best, especially over the last 20 years, to emulate the stereotypical west coast university, earning it such monikers as "the University of Colorado-Berkeley" and "the People's Republic of Boulder."

Well, without turning this into the sort of political screed that you would find on some right wing blog, let's just say that support for athletics, particularly men's athletics and specifically football, has not been associated with the post-60s west coast.

Instead, you are more likely to find apathy and hostility.

For example, when living in Tallahassee in the early 1990s, I recall a president of large public university in California was shocked, SHOCKED, to discover how her decision to eliminate the football program was met with such disdain. 

She wanted the athletic department to focus its energies on turning that institution into a women's sports powerhouse. The decision actually HARMED her chances of becoming Florida State University's president.

Example two. See this list of universities that have dropped football. Note how west coast, and specifically California institutions, are overrepresented, and how the pace of these decisions to drop football accelerated, starting in the late 1970s, including a rash in the 1990s.

And these aren't small, financially troubled institutions either. They include Cal Poly-Pomona, Cal-Riverside, Cal State-Chico, Cal State-Fullerton, Cal State-Hayward, Cal State-Los Angeles, Cal Tech, Long Beach State, Pacific, San Francisco, San Francisco State, Santa Clara, Sonoma State, University of California at San Diego, and the University of California at Santa Barbara.

And that is not all. The San Diego State University faculty - as well as various student activist groups - has been working to abolish that institution's football program for years, and San Diego State football has similarly been targeted.

Now make no mistake. The Pac-10 invited Colorado instead of Baylor (thereby causing their original Pac-16 plan to be destroyed by Texas politics) in large part because they saw a kindred spirit, a university and community that is similar to the others on the west coast.

The decision rewarded Colorado for shedding their midwestern cultural roots and doing their best to become more like Berkeley.

Well, excuse me, but despite being smack dab in the middle of one of the richest talent markets in the country AND having the athletic budget, academic profile, and name recognition to recruit nationally, Cal-Berkeley has not been to a Rose Bowl since 1959!

This is a university whose long overdue facilities improvement project was opposed and held up by student and faculty groups because it would have meant cutting down a tree!

Now, why this crowd sees football as a manifestation of fascism (see most of the recent Hollywood movies on football, especially "Any Given Sunday" and "Varsity Blues" as well as the many movies like "Heathers" that give viciously negative depictions of college and high school football players that athletes in, say, basketball and soccer are strangely exempt from) is a topic for another day.

Let's just acknowledge that these attitudes exist, and are why a university in the region of the country that the Pac-10 just happens to call home would rather drop football than try to excel in it.

Which, of course, makes the fact that Colorado was invited to the Pac-10 (a league that, when USC is removed, has won 2 national titles in 60 years) because of its similarities to west coast universities a real problem if their expansion is actually going to work in football terms.

After all, look at the recent history of Colorado football.

When Bill McCartney left behind a top five football program, the Buffaloes could have hired practically anyone they wanted. They chose Rick Neuheisel because they liked the image of the laid-back, detached, ukelele-strumming, progressive UCLA product.

Even Neuheisel's obvious lack of qualifications (32 years old, had only been in the profession a few years) was seen as "anti-establishment" and his aversion to NCAA rules, recruiting, the running game, or defense in a game dominated by old southern and midwestern white males was the ultimate way to stick it to the man.

When Neuheisel predictably left the program talent-poor and in major trouble with the NCAA, Colorado replaced him with Gary Barnett, despite the fact that Barnett's smoke and mirrors routine at Northwestern was wearing thin.

And, oh yeah, there was something about this GAMBLING SCANDAL while he was there. (Barnett's very association with Northwestern was what made his hiring acceptable.)

Now, Barnett was a questionable hire to begin with. But rather than supporting him, Colorado hung him out to dry and left him holding the bag for things that resulted from both a campus culture that the administration allowed to get out of control AND the mess that Rick Neuheisel left behind.

This included the Katie Hnida situation, as Neuheisel figured putting a person on the football team who couldn't play a lick because she was female was the "progressive" thing to do.

Well, Barnett heaped the blame for "creating a culture of misogyny" that resulted in Hnida's vague and hardly pursued (because she never filed charges) rape allegations.

Now, even if Hnida's story was true (she was clearly disgruntled at a Barnett for refusing to allow her to kick in a game, but the coach couldn't kick her off the team that Neuheisel had placed her on for fear of a gender discrimination lawsuit), her accusations were made against PLAYERS WITH QUESTIONABLE BACKGROUNDS THAT NEUHEISEL HAD BROUGHT INTO THE PROGRAM.

So exit Barnett, who was depicted in the local and national media as a rape enabler, and enter another Neuheisel type with the promise of how being a progressive Xs and Os passing game genius means you can win football games against the dim bulb good ole boys without bothering with stuff like recruiting or having a competitive mentality.

Dan Hawkins.

Hawkins took over a program that was at least competitive, reaching bowl games in six of seven seasons, and has since gone 16-33.

Barnett defenders point out that his tenure suffered from scholarship losses due to NCAA sanctions over Neuheisel's tenure. Even if that was true, there was no excuse for getting blown out 54-38 (and it wasn't that close!) by 5-7 TOLEDO.

After that game, pundits stated the Rockets appeared to have more talent than Colorado did. And Hawkins admitted having made "mistakes" in recruiting.

This is what happens when Berkeley-wannabe universities make hiring decisions in order to project an "we are so not a football factory!" image instead of winning football games.

Now the Pac-10's own Washington Huskies can relate, as Barbara Hedges famously hired Rick Neuheisel as part of her "new hip west coast brand" fundraising and promotional campaign for UW.

This amounts to the Pac-10 rewarding CU-Boulder for their 15 years and counting of neglect (or hostility) towards their football program with membership.

Yes, I said "and counting", because, despite the obvious fact that Hawkins won't succeed at Colorado for some time, the university refuses to fire him.

The Pac-10 actually offered Colorado membership EARLY and UNCONDITIONALLY in order to block any attempt to be forced to take Baylor who, unlike Colorado, has actually recently tried to hire good coaches (first Guy Morriss from the SEC and now Art Briles, who did what was previously thought to be impossible in reviving Houston Cougars football) and has poured millions into their football and basketball programs despite a bad economy.

Their adamant attempt not to keep Baylor out played a large role in the ultimate collapse of their Pac-16 plan, something that they KNEW was a possibility when they moved to block Baylor.

So the Pac-10 cost themselves two top five football programs in Texas and Oklahoma, two AAU universities in Texas and Texas A&M (plus another with aspirations for Tier I research status in Texas Tech), and the HUGE Texas TV and recruiting markets because they were dead set on rewarding Colorado for emulating a university whose badly needed athletics center was held up by students and faculty trying to save a tree.

Makes sense, if your conference is home to a state where nearly all of its major universities have dropped football, and is one where Tyrone Willingham received national coach of the year honors and won a conference title.

At this point, the Pac-10 and Colorado deserve each other. If that is too harsh, then at the very least it is clear why the remaining Big 12 institutions aren't exactly mourning the loss of an AAU institution and the #16 TV market.

They KNEW that unless major changes were made, Colorado would never be a factor in college football again. (Or basketball. Colorado was actually showing signs of life in that sport in the 1990s - the Donnie Boyce/Chauncey Billups era - before allowing it to wither on the vine because of a lack of attention or support.)

The amazing thing is that the Pac-10 admitted Colorado without receiving any real promises from the Buffaloes on how they are going to improve in athletics. The only thing that has been stated from the Colorado people is "we will get better because being in the Pac-10 will allow us to recruit California better and get more support from our California fans in road games."

Well, as much as Colorado might WISH they were in California, THEY'RE NOT. Besides, being in California hasn't done squat for UCLA, Cal, or Stanford, who have combined for ZERO major bowl game victories since the 1980s. Now as far as concrete things like plans for fundraising and facility improvements or the type of coach that they are going to hire when Hawkins is jettisoned after his 5th losing season or a new athletics director who can capably manage their new landscape, none of that has been announced.

Which is no surprise, because again Colorado doesn't care about athletics. The issue is that the Pac-10 admitted Colorado without demanding such things from them first, which is evidence that the Pac-10's own commitment to or knowledge of college football is questionable, and that wanting another "people's republic" type university and community was the #1 item on their priority list.

Now had Colorado stayed in the Big 12, which only exists because of athletics in the first place, they would have at some point been forced to become competitive or get kicked out like the Big East did to Temple a few years back.

But now that they have achieved what they have long sought, which is to be affiliated with and considered among the left coast universities, what incentive do they have to become competitive in football again?

Now if they have the attitude "now that we are FINALLY around universities that we actually like and respect, let's go about the business of beating them on the football field so we can earn their respect."

Well then they most certainly owe the Big 12 Conference that they never TRIED to compete in that $10 million exit fee plus more besides that.

Even if they do become the equivalent of the fellow who decides to become a good employee after he was fired by his first job or a good husband only after his first wife leaves him and he remarries, the question remains of exactly how they are going to pull this off.

By moving to the Pac-10, they are cut off from their traditional recruiting markets. Yet, they have nothing to offer their NEW markets except being just another one of many schools trying to recruit California.

First, they have to tell a California kid why he should leave USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford, then they have to tell him why he should choose CU over not only Arizona, Arizona State, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State but even Utah, who has two 13-0 seasons and BCS bowl wins in the last 5 years.

The CU people are going to find out fast that there is no pressing reason for a kid to choose the wannabe Berkeley when he can go to the real thing!

This IS NOT just an issue for the Colorado people. It is a very real issue for the Pac-10 folks as well. How this expansion is going to actually work and result in increased revenue unless Colorado starts doing what they haven't done for over 10 years in the Big 12, which is pulling their own weight.

Remember, one of the justifications that was used for preserving the Big 12 despite losing Colorado was that even in a conference that doesn't split revenue equally, Colorado was still a net revenue loser for the conference! And the Pac-10 splits revenue equally.

And yes, Denver is the #16 TV market. But unless Colorado starts winning football games, is anyone in Denver going to watch? Especially since Colorado will be playing Pac-10 teams instead of their traditional Big 12 rivals?

Again, Colorado already has gotten what they wanted in being allowed to join the Pac-10. As to whether the Pac-10 will get in return what they NEED, which is for Colorado to begin winning like they did when they had Bill McCartney, that remains to be seen.