Tag: CU

Lady Buff Nuria Ormeño Ruiz Qualifies for NIIC

horvath Leave a comment

University of Colorado junior Nuria Ormeño Ruiz won the USTA/ITA Mountain Region Championship on Sunday (October 18). She is the first Lady Buff to capture the regional singles title.

After losing the first set, Ormeño Ruiz rebounded to defeat the University of Denver’s Julia O’Loughlin by a score of 4-6, 6-4, 6-3. The cubuffs.com website reported that the match began outdoors and was moved inside for the final set because of inclement weather.

With the win, Ormeño Ruiz automatically qualified for the USTA National Indoor Intercollegiate Championships in New York City on Nov. 12-15. This marks the first time the Buffs have had a singles player competing in the NIIC.  Last season Julyette Steur and Kyra Wojcik were the first Lady Buffs doubles team to qualify for the tournament.

Ormeño Ruiz was born in Madrid, Spain and graduated from the Emilio Sanchez International School in Barcelona. The cubuffs.com website indicates she entered the fall season with 38 singles and 25 doubles career victories as a Lady Buff.

The Lady Buffs have had a strong fall season and will begin the spring season on January 17 in Boulder against Air Force. Make plans now to support the Lady Buffs during their PAC-12 play.

Nuria Ormeño Ruiz

CU Football – Charting a Path to Effective Leadership

horvath Leave a comment

Since CU football began in 1890, the Buffs have had an impressive run, 673–452–36. During these 125+ years, Buff fans have been treated to the athleticism and leadership of athletes such as Dick and Bobby Anderson, Cliff Branch, Tom Brookshier, Darian Hagan, and Whizzer White.

Unfortunately, the Buffs have fallen on lean times for the past nine years, including two years under Coach MacIntyre. During this period the team was 31-79 overall and 16-60 in conference play. In the two seasons under Coach MacIntyre the team was only 6-18; however, those close to the program are quick to point out they have high expectations for the team because they believe his record does not reflect the team’s improvement.

Since taking over MacIntryre has addressed a myriad of issues ranging from recruiting to academics to facilities. Recent team updates in the local media have highlighted MacIntyre’s experiment to strengthen leadership within the program.

He has announced that each game he will rotate four captains from a 12-person leadership council. The council members are primarily upperclassmen and a mix of offensive and defensive players. MacIntyre emphasized that council members were “carefully” elected by the players. Council members have the responsibility/privilege of attending leadership meetings conducted by the Athletic Department in addition to the regularly scheduled council meetings.

In addition, MacIntyre has made a concerted effort to inform the entire team about the importance of effective leadership and the qualities of strong leaders. The coach is to be commended for his efforts to change the culture of leadership within the program.

But, will it have an impact on the team in the short run?leadership from any chair

MacIntyre’s experiment parallels current trends in the business world to implement flat leadership or “leading from any chair.” Organizational theory experts have identified the following benefits of this style of leadership in the business world:
• The concept has increased creativity and innovation in some companies.
• A greater number of workers have a chance for their ideas to be heard.
• In turn, workers may take on greater responsibility and be more willing to be held accountable for their actions.
• Workers may show more initiative because they have a greater sense of importance.
• Cooperation, cohesiveness, and teamwork may improve when a project is successful.
These are great reasons for adopting this style of leadership.

As with any leadership style, “leadership from any chair” has its flaws. Experts have criticized the style for the following reasons:
• The concept is great for creating new products, but not so great at creating new leaders.
• The workplace becomes inefficient because there are no designated leaders to resolve disagreements or curb jealousy and backstabbing.
• At times companies have difficulty making quick or important decisions because there are no designated leaders.
• Although everyone has a voice, groupthink is often an unintended consequence.
• Communications may not always be efficient because too many people may be involved in the decision-making process.
• Mentorship does not occur in the “me first ” environment.
• Not all workers are comfortable with this style of leadership, which renders it ineffective.
These are great reasons for MacIntyre to adopt a more traditional approach for strengthening team leadership.

Will MacIntyre’s leadership experiment seal the deal for the Buffs or will it be a bust?

In a couple of weeks the team will demonstrate whether Coach Mac was able to chart a new path to effective leadership for the Buffs. Go Buffs!

Not All Athletes are Dumb Jocks

horvath Leave a comment

There is a stereotype that college athletes are dumb jocks. As a result the NCAA set up the Academic Performance Program in 2003 to “incent” colleges to help their students be better athletes, thus eliminating this label.

In late May the University of Colorado released the results of the Academic Progress Rate (APR) report prepared by the NCAA for its 17 programs. Highlights of the report are:
• 13 of 17 team averages exceeded the national average for their sport.
• The men’s cross country team had a perfect four-year APR score of 1000 (top 10 percent in its sport), along with an NCAA Championship and 4 consecutive Pac-12 championships.
• The women’s lacrosse team, completed its second year with a perfect 1000 APR score;
• Five sport programs achieved a perfect 1000 score for the 2013-14 academic year, men’s cross country, men’s skiing, women’s basketball, women’s golf, and women’s lacrosse. (not shown in the table below)
• Football increased its APR performance to a 957 score. In 2008-09 the program had a 919 score that led to a six-scholarship penalty.

This year CU had a composite APR score of 977, well above the penalty level of 930. In other words, not all athletes are dumb jocks.

This score projects graduation rates that will be above those of the general student population. It is common for special groups (music, theatre, clubs, and other organizations, etc.) to have GPAs or academic achievement rates above the school average. In the case of athletics that is also a result of the special academic and tutoring programs established for athletes to help them meet the demands of sports and school.

Go Buffs!

Team 2013-24 APR Four-Year APR 2010-11 to 2013-14 2013-14 Team GPA
Men’s Cross Country 1000 1000 3.015
Women's Lacrosse 1000 1000 3.040
Women's Basketball 1000 995 3.028
Women's Golf 1000 991 3.285
Men's Skiing 1000 980 3.282
Men's Outdoor Track 989 986 2.856
Men's Indoor Track 989 985
Women's Soccer 988 994 3.304
Women's Cross Country 985 996 3.362
Women's Volleyball 979 989 2.874
Women's Indoor Track 979 986
Women's Outdoor Track 979 986 3.152
Men's Golf 976 967 2.845
Women's Tennis 969 983 3.340
Football 966 957 2.703
Men's Basketball 959 975 2.538
Women's Skiing 944 965 3.595
Penalty Level 930 930

Percentage of Points Won – Stanford, Nebraska, and CU Volleyball

horvath Leave a comment

What is the difference in the percentage of points won for winners and losers?

The top teams in the country win slightly more than half the points they play in conference matches. At the other end of the pecking order the worst teams in the country win 40% to 45% of the points they play.

As expected, teams that win about half the points will win about half the sets and about half their matches.

To illustrate this point, consider the 2006 and 2014 University of Colorado teams.

During the 2006 conference season the Lady Buffs won:
• 49.5% of the points
• 53.1% of the sets
• 60.0% of the matches.
During the 2014 season the Lady Buffs won:
• 50.0% of the points
• 50.0% of the sets
• 55.0% of the matches.
Both seasons the Lady Buffs were invited to the NCAA Championships and won their first round matches before bowing out.

When teams win less than half the points they win a much smaller percentage of the sets and an even smaller percentage of the matches. A prime example was the 2009 CU Lady Buffs.

During the 2009 season the Lady Buffs won:
• 42.8% of the points
• 16.7% of the sets
• 10.0% of the matches.
They had one of the poorest records in the country for Division I teams.

When teams win more than half the points those wins are magnified. A greater percentage of sets are won and an even greater percentage of matches are won.

During the 2014 season the Nebraska Cornhuskers won:
• 52.1% of the points
• 66.2% of the sets
• 70.0% of the matches.
The Cornhuskers lost 3-0 to finalist BYU in the quarterfinals of the NCAA Championships.

The 2014 Stanford Cardinal team won:
• 54.3% of the points
• 78.4% of the sets
• 95.0% of the matches.
The Cardinal lost to champion Penn State in the semifinals.

The 2006 Nebraska Cornhuskers won:
• 56.4% of the points
• 89.4% of the sets
• 95.0% of the matches.
The Cornhuskers were National Champions in 2006. Their only loss was to the Lady Buffs, a team that won less than half its points in conference play. Despite their one loss, this Husker team was incredibly dominant.

The data shows there is a fine line between the percentage of points won for the best and the worst teams in the country. For additional information, see the report Team Tendencies and the Importance of Winning a Point.

Percentage of Points Won - Stanford, Nebraska, CU

Women’s Volleyball Team Tendencies

horvath Leave a comment

The women’s volleyball scores for the University of Colorado were evaluated for the nine-year period 2006 to 2014. In addition, scores were included for select Nebraska and Stanford seasons. From this analysis points won, sets won, and matches won, the following team tendencies were developed.

The following definitions are used in the description of the different levels.
Blowouts – decided by 10 points or more.
Solid – decided by 5 to 9 points.
Competitive – decided by 3 or 4 points.
Close – decided by 2 points.

Tier I Teams
• Win more than 53% of the points.
• Don’t lose blowout sets and less than 10% of sets are solid losses. They don’t give opponents a chance to get into the match.
• Win a majority of the close and competitive sets.
• At least 35% of the sets are solid wins
• At least 10% of the sets are blowout wins.
• Win at least 80% of their matches and most wins are 3-0.

Tier II Teams
• Win between 50.1% and 53.0% of the points.
• May lose a few blowout and solid loss sets.
• Win a majority of close and competitive matches.
• About 30% of their sets are solid wins and 5% are blowouts.
• Win at least 66% of their matches and most wins are 3-0 or 3-1.

Tier III Teams
• Win 48.1% to 50% of the points.
• Less than 10% of sets lost are blowouts and 20% solid losses.
• Sometimes win a majority of the close and competitive matches.
• Win about 20% of the sets are solid wins
• May win a few blowout sets.
• Win about half their matches.

Tier IV Teams
• Win between 45.1% and 48% of the points.
• About 20% of their sets are blowouts and 25% are solid loses.
• Most losses are 3-0 or 3-1.
• Win about 35% of their sets and matches.

Tier V Teams
• Win less than 45.1% of their points.
• More than half their sets are solid losses or blowouts.
• A majority of their matches are lost 3-0.
• Win less than 30% of their matches.

The above hierarchy will allow coaches to identify where their team falls in the peaking order and provide them with coaching that will help them move up the pecking order.

For additional information, click here and go to the report Team Tendencies and the Importance of Winning a Point.

CU Football Ranked Again – Number One

horvath Leave a comment

Santa Claus delivered an early Christmas present to the University of Colorado football team and its fans – a number one ranking. Go Buffs!

The December 22nd issue of Forbes Magazine featured its annual ranking in “College Football’s Best And Worst Teams For The Buck 2014”. The Buffs were ranked #1 – the worst investment in college football.CU Football Ranked

Author Chris Smith stated, “Across the last three seasons, no team has spent more per football victory than Colorado, our pick for the sport’s worst team for the money. The Buffaloes have won just seven games in that time, tied with Kansas for the least of any team in our pool, while spending over $50 million. To put that into perspective, Mississippi State has built a competitive SEC program while spending $44 million across the same time period,”

To be exact, the Buff footballers spent $51.4 million over three years. Basic math shows that each of the seven wins cost $7.34 million.

Just think how it must feel to be one of the seven teams that lost to the Buffs! Thank goodness those seven teams were inept; otherwise the cost for CU to win a game would be much higher.

This notoriety is of the same ilk as the university’s #1 ranking (multiple years) as the top party school in the country. In addition, the Leeds School of Business is continually ranked as one of the country’s weakest business schools in the country and the worst in Colorado.  Bummer!

The article proves that if you are good at math, it is possible to calculate virtually anything – meaningful or meaningless. While a case can be made that the Forbes calculations fall into the latter category, they point to a larger challenge for CU.

CU clearly does not have the money to build the facilities, attract the top athletes and coaches, and be competitive with the elite football teams in the PAC-12 and the country.

Will they retain the number one ranking in 2015? Probably not!

More importantly, where will they be able to find the money to play with the big boys? Smoke and mirrors? An unsuspecting sugar daddy? The state will triple its funding for the university?

A more likely option would be for CU to lower its academic standards or look the other way to become a winner. The only cost involved in that type of decision would be their reputation.

In the mean time Buff fans can only hope that Forbes and Chris Smith have somewhere else to look when the article is penned for 2015.

 

Colorado Lady Buffs Volleyball Ranked 21st

horvath Leave a comment

Congratulations to the Colorado Lady Buffs volleyball team and the PAC-12 on their 2014 season. Setter Nicole Edelman and AVCA All-American hitter Taylor Simpson led the Lady Buffs to a year-end ranking of 21st in the country. Nine PAC-12 teams were ranked in the top 25.

Lady Buffs Volleyball
Nicole Edelman (5) has set Taylor Simpson (16).

Best wishes to the Lady Buffs for a productive off-season and strong recruiting to fill the voids left by the graduating seniors.

2014 Season Ending AVCA Rankings (PAC-12 Teams in Blue)

Rank School Total Points Adjusted 2014 Record Previous Rank
1 Penn State 1500 36-3 4
2 Stanford 1432 33-2 1
3 BYU 1374 30-5 12
4 Wisconsin 1306 31-3 2
5 Texas 1276 27-3 6
6 Florida 1183 28-4 5
7 North Carolina 1115 29-3 7
8 Nebraska 1074 23-10 11
9 Washington 1049 31-3 3
10 Florida State 921 30-3 8
11 Illinois 900 26-8 10
12 Colorado State 853 31-3 9
13 Ohio State 744 23-12 18
14 Oregon 681 23-10 16
15 UCLA 659 22-12 17
16 Arizona 613 24-10 14
17 Kentucky 497 27-6 13
18 Utah 443 20-13 20
19 Long Beach State 407 27-5 15
20 Oregon State 376 20-13 NR
21 Colorado 333 20-14 19
22 Arizona State 231 20-14 22
23 Hawai'i 204 22-7 23
24 Arkansas-Little Rock 96 30-5 NR
25 Duke 74 22-8 21

 

CU Buffs Football Team – Attendance Slips Further

horvath Leave a comment

The primary goal of Division I football teams is to win and make money; however, the hard cold facts are that half the teams that play every Saturday are losers.

Over the past decade the abysmal win-loss record of the CU Buffs football team has given fans a reason to find other things to do on Saturday afternoons than support the black and gold.

The problems began a decade ago.

The Buffs finished the 2004 and 2005 seasons with 7-5 records. That is outstanding by today’s standards.

In 2004 they were 4-4 in the Big 12 and in 2005 they were 5-3. Oklahoma beat them 42-3 in the 2004 Big 12 Championships and Texas thumped them 70-3 the following year.

Many viewed these drubbings in the championships as a sign that CU was not capable of participating in the D1 football race to see which program could spend the most money.

The CU administration viewed the losses differently. They used them as justification for hiring a new coach.

In retrospect, those days of getting slaughtered in the  Big 12 championships were the good old days. The Buffs football team has not had a winning season since 2005.

In 2011, dollar signs flashed in front of the CU administrators and CU jumped from the Big 12 to the PAC-12 conference. Unfortunately the Buffs found out the PAC-12 also had teams that knew how to play football.

Since 2011, the Buffs have had four conference wins – two on the road and two at home. Details follow:

Year Conference Record Comments
2011 2-7 conference record Home win over Arizona and a road win against Utah.
2012 1-8 conference record Road win over Washington State.
2013 1-8 conference record Home win over California.
2014 0-9 conference record Ugh!

Unfortunately, the Buffs conference home attendance has paralleled the number of wins on the field.

2011
The Buffs were 1-4 at home in conference play.
• 9/10 49,532 California
• 10/1 51,928 Washington State
• 10/22 52,123 Oregon
• 11/4 50,083 Southern California
• 11/22 48,111 Arizona.
Average conference home attendance 50,355.

2012
The Buffs were 0-5 at home in conference play.
• 9/29 46,893 UCLA
• 10/11 45,161 Arizona State
• 10/27 44,138 Stanford
• 11/17 43,148 Washington
• 11/23 46,052 Utah.
Average conference home attendance 45,078.

2013
The Buffs were 1-3 at home in conference play.
• 10/5 45,944 Oregon
• 10/26 38,679 Arizona
• 11/16 38,252 California
• 11/23 36,005 Southern California.
Average conference home attendance 39,720.

2014
The Buffs were 0-5 at home in conference play.
• 9/13 38,547 Arizona State
• 10/04 36,415 Oregon State
• 10/24 37,442 UCLA
• 11/1 35,633 Washington
• 11/29 39,155 Utah
Fewer than 40,000 people attended every home game and average conference home attendance was 37,438.

Given these numbers, it’s a tough time to be the football coach or athletic director at the University of Colorado. Buff fans can only hope for a turn-around in 2015.

Colorado Volleyball is the Winner in NCAA Tournament

horvath Leave a comment

Colorado volleyball will be the winner on December 5th and 6th as the University of Northern Colorado squares off against the University of Colorado and the University of Denver faces Colorado State University in the first round of play of the 2014 NCAA Division I volleyball championships.

The first round play will be special because twenty of the fifty-eight rostered players on the four teams played high school volleyball in Colorado.

The leader is DU. Seven of the fourteen players are from the Centennial State.

  • Nola Basey, Outside Hitter, 6-2, Sophomore, Lyons
  • Erica Denney, Middle Hitter, 6-5, Red-shirt Senior, Aurora
  • Monique Domme, Setter, 5-11, Sophomore, Colorado Springs
  • Bailey Karst, Setter, 5-10, Senior, Aurora
  • Taylor Loyd, Defensive Specialist/Libero, 5-7, Freshman, Centennial
  • Ruth Okoye, Middle Blocker, 6-1, Sophomore, Aurora
  • Sarah Schmid, Middle Blocker, 6-1, Junior, Highlands Ranch

Five of the fifteen Buffs are Coloradans.

  • Kelsey English, Middle Blocker, 6-2, Senior, Colorado Springs
  • Nicole Edelman, Setter, 6-0, Junior, Boulder

    Colorado volleyball - Nicole Edleman and Cierra Simpson
    Setter Nicole Edelman and Cierra Simpson (10) are two of the five in-state Buff players.
  • Cierra Simpson, Defensive Specialist/Libero, 6-0, Sophomore, Colorado Springs
  • Gabby Simpson, Setter ,6-3, Freshman, Colorado Springs
  • Simpson, Outside Hitter, 6-3, Senior, Colorado Springs

Four of the fourteen Rams are from Colorado.

  • Jaime Colaizzi, 5-4, Libero, Junior, Windsor
  • Grace Gordon, 5-7, Defensive Specialist/Setter, Junior, Denver
  • Kelsey Snider, 6-1, Middle Blocker, Red-shirt Senior, Westminster
  • Kaitlind Bestgen, 5-10, Defensive Specialist, Red-shirt Junior, Fort Collins

Four of the fifteen women from UNC call Colorado home.

  • Kim Weissmann, 6-0, Outside Hitter, Freshman, Loveland
  • Meagan Garcia, Defensive Specialist, Junior, 5-4, Platteville
  • Ryleigh Haynes, Setter, Freshman, 5-11, Eaton
  • Kendra Cunningham, OH, Junior, 5-9, Eaton

CU and CSU are favored to win the first round matches and the Rams are likely to come out on top against CU.

No matter the outcome of the matches, Colorado volleyball is the winner!

 

Can Colorado Afford to be in the Athletic Arms Race?

horvath Leave a comment

Two and a half years ago, the University of Colorado announced they would join the PAC 12 in 2011. The move was justified by university officials for the following reasons:

  • More than 35,000 alumni reside in the Pac-12 footprint, whereas about 11,000 are located within the Big 12 regions.
  • This level of alumni support in key markets should help with recruiting.
  • CU should get more support on the road, because there is easier access to PAC 12 cities.
  • Many CU fans feel the PAC 12 cities are more desirable to visit.
  • PAC 12 teams will receive significant revenue from the new Pac 12 television contract.
  • The PAC 12 was a closer fit academically.

These are all legitimate reasons to make the switch; however, it was obvious that CU could not bankroll teams that could consistently compete against Oklahoma and the wealthier Texas schools. Most Coloradans hate to lose to Texas (at anything).

CU is not the only university that is having trouble dealing with the accelerated level of spending for athletic programs. In August 2011 Michael Smith, writer for Street and Smith’s Online Sports Business Journal was the author of an article entitled “Athletic Budgets Continue to Climb“, that focused on the rapid growth of budgets for the major athletic conferences. Though the data is slightly dated, it illustrates the amount of money spent on college athletic programs and their rates of growth.

Smith secured budgets for most of the schools in the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, and PAC 12. Texas tops the list in spending. The median rate of annualized growth is 5.4%.

Six SEC, four Big 10, and two Big 12 teams round out the top twelve schools in spending. Oregon is the top PAC 12 team at number 13 and North Carolina is the top ACC team at number 21. Four of the bottom eight schools are from the PAC 12, including newcomers Colorado and Utah.

In the PAC 12 Colorado and Arizona State have similar budgets and both are well above Washington State and Utah. The four schools stack up at the bottom of the conference.

If Colorado was still in the Big 12 it would be at the bottom with a budget similar to Iowa State and Baylor. The size of the Texas athletic budget is about the same as the combined budgets of Colorado, Iowa State and Baylor.

Of the 49th teams, CU was 42nd overall and 39th in the rate of growth. Six of the PAC 12 teams had budgets that grew at an annualized rate of 3.1% or less from 2010 to 2012.

The PAC 12 is a great conference for the University of Colorado for the reasons stated above. Time will tell whether schools such as Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, and Utah can afford to participate in the PAC 12 or any other major athletic conference.

The table below expressed the athletic budgets for the schools in millions, from Smith’s article. In three instances estimates were made or to account for data that was not available in Smith’s report.

ACC Budgets were not available for Boston College, Duke, Miami and Wake Forest. The Big 10 budget for Northwestern was not available. The PAC 12 budgets for Stanford and USC were not available. The Big 12 budgets were not available for Baylor. The SEC budget for Vanderbilt was not available.  The 49 universities are color coded by Conference (Big 12 = grey, Big 10 = pink, SEC = green, Pac 12 = purple, ACC = light orange).