Lady Buff Nuria Ormeño Ruiz Qualifies for NIIC

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

Not All Athletes are Dumb Jocks

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

Lessons From a Bad Situation – Support Your Local Team

In May, 2006 the University of Colorado eliminated its men’s tennis program, the second time in a matter of years that a Colorado Division I school dropped its men’s tennis program. A small group of “supporters” irrationally responded to the rational, but unfortunate decision in a childish manner.

In fact, the protesters coerced the United States Tennis Association, Colorado Tennis Association, Intermountain Tennis Association, and the Intercollegiate Tennis Coaches Association to purchase a full-page ad in the Denver Post condemning the University of Colorado.

On May 31, 2006 Boulder Daily Camera sports writer Neil Woelk wrote an editorial addressing the situation. The text of that article follows.

Not only did Woelk explain the situation, he offered advice for Colorado sports fans. Unfortunately, Woelk’s words of wisdom issued 8 1/2 years ago have been ignored by ‘supporters’ of about every sport at the University of Colorado.

The bottom line – get out and support your local team, whether it is junior high, high school, college, or a university athletic program!

————————————————————————————-


‘Support’ for CU tennis program rings hollow

I’ve watched with interest-and, I admit, a measure of amusement-as the heretofore unknown support for the Colorado men’s tennis program has emerged.

The first question that comes to mind is a simple one: Where was all this support over the last 10 years? Where were all these alleged die-hard college tennis fans when the Buffs routinely played home matches in front of a handful-very small handful-of fans?

The answer, of course, is that they didn’t exist.

Fact is, few people cared about CU tennis-at least, not enough to send a few bucks to the program or actually attend a match now and then. Tennis matches and seasons came and went, and nobody noticed.

But now all of a sudden-in true Boulder fashion-we have a “cause”. Now, folks who had no interest in the program suddenly have an interest because it’s become a crisis situation with all the elements that make such causes attractive.

The big, bad athletic department-yes, the one that puts so much emphasis on football-is picking on the little guy. Football stays, tennis goes. The only thing that would have made the cause more attractive would have been prairie dogs playing tennis.

But ask yourself this: How much support for tennis was there prior to this?

Here’s an interesting tidbit: Just last year, CU officials went to the tennis community and asked for help in building an indoor practice facility for the men’s and women’s programs. Such a facility would not only have guaranteed the long-term survival of the sport at CU, but would have helped increase interest in the programs by integrating the community into the program. The interest then? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nobody cared. Nobody donated.

That was the first clue for CU officials that the Buff tennis programs weren’t exactly overflowing with supporters.

Not to say there aren’t a few ardent, bona fide boosters-just like there were a handful of wrestling, baseball, gymnastics and swimming boosters 26 years ago at CU. These folks are understandably upset. Something they love had been eliminated.

But now we have the entire tennis community-a relatively affluent demographic, by the way-up in arms because CU is eliminating something that only a few you paid attention to.

It’s similar to the little kid with the long-forgotten toy in the back of his closet. He never plays with it; in fact, he seldom remembers that it exists.

But when the decision is made to sweep the toy away, it’s temper-tantrum time-and this one is a doozy.

Now tennis supporters are self righteously threatening never to support CU again. They’re issuing press releases and buying advertising detailing how much CU will lose in the long term. At the same time, they’re leveling personal attacks on people who actually do care about CU student-athletes, an offensive mob-mentality reaction.

The irony here is that most of these folks threatening never to support CU again never supported CU in the past. Had those people cared before now, the situation never would have occurred.

But they didn’t support CU athletics. They didn’t care.

And now CU’s athletic department is faced with a difficult decision:

Keep all the current sports and watch each one gradually deteriorate; or, reduce the number of sports, shore up the financial problems, and do your best to keep the remaining sports competitive.

It’s not really a choice.

Today, organizers of the recent fundraising drive will argue that they had enough money in hand to keep the program afloat for another couple of years.  Actually they had enough money in hand to pay for approximately one-third of one year. The rest was in the form of pledges-not money in hand. Had AD Mike Bohn agreed to restore the program, the likelihood of being in the same position a year from now was very real.

Personally, I wish Bohn could have found a way not to cut the program. Such moves are always a sign of deeper problems-and Bohn inherited a department that is still reeling from mismanagement of the past regime. But Bohn was hired to clean up the mess, and he will be the one whose career is balanced on those decisions.

Now, as the athletic department prepares to present its budgets for the next fiscal year to the administration, it must prove that the department is doing his best to become viable again. It must present a business plan that presents sacrifices in some areas-and the cold, hard fact is that cutting a program is a sacrifice that must be made.

The hope is that at least some of the people who pledged to save tennis will maintain those pledges to help the other existing programs. That would be a strong statement.

It does not, however, mean that lessons from the situation can’t be learned:

• Years ago, CU officials-in their infinite wisdom-changed the rules and made it virtually impossible to support a specific program. Now, if you want to donate to athletics, your money goes to a general fund and is spent at CU’s discretion.

Reinstating the ability to donate to specific programs in some form would not be a bad idea-It might encourage coaches of the nonrevenue sports to be more proactive in the fund raising arena.

• Don’t wait for crisis mode to hit again.  Like volleyball? Take in a volleyball match now and then. Enjoy soccer? Check out the soccer team, and toss a few bucks to the scholarship fund, or donate to the general athletic department fund.

• And, as illogical as this may sound to some, one of the easiest ways to support tennis-volleyball, track, cross country, skiing or golf-is to buy a football ticket. Folks, football pays the bills. If football were the only sport in the athletic department, the department would be rolling in positive cash flow. Football is the ONLY revenue-generating sport in the department.

When Folsom Field is full, every other sport in the department benefits. If Folsom Field were sold out every Saturday this fall, CU’s financial worries would virtually disappear.

Don’t like football? Give the ticket to a friend. Donate it to charity.

But don’t wait until another crisis occurs. Don’t ignore a program if you actually do care.

And above all don’t complain when it’s too late.
————————————————————————————-

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL TEAM!

Colorado Volleyball is the Winner in NCAA Tournament

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!

 

If You Were the Buffs AD, Would You Spend $143 Million?

CU Athletics recently announced plans to spend $143 million to update its facilities. In an email sent under Rick George’s name, this expenditure was explained in the following way:

“Our Sustainable Excellence Initiative (SEI), which includes a $143 million wide-ranging facilities improvement plan, was approved unanimously by the Board of Regents on December 4. This is the vital component to our strategic plan, one that reaches out past the year 2025, which will be finalized by the end of January. We have determined what our vision and mission are:

“To be nationally recognized as a premier athletics department, by providing a world-class and holistic student-athlete experience, operating in a fiscally responsible manner, while consistently competing for and winning championships.”

The comprehensive student-athlete experience includes enhancing our academic, health and wellness, and personal development programs, in concert with raising the level of competitive excellence for all teams to compete for and win championships on the conference and national levels. Developing and renovating facilities is the key factor in achieving the above objectives.

We are working diligently to make this a reality, not a pipe dream. We intend to start construction this Spring with a completion date in time for the start of the 2015-16 academic and athletic year; yes, an aggressive remake of our athletic department in what basically is a 16-month window.”$143 milliom

CU Athletics submitted their proposal directly to the Board of Regents instead of initially having it approved by the campus planning committee. Technically this is not a problem, but George’s actions may not sit well with some members of a community that does not fully support the Buffs.

It is presumed that George’s rush for approval is driven by clauses in Coach McIntyre’s contract that require CU to initiate plans for facility improvements by the end of the year and to complete those upgrades by a certain date. Said differently, the cost of hiring coach Mac contractually extends well beyond his monthly wages and incentives.

CU is faced with a self-induced conundrum. They are in an athletic arms race they cannot afford to be in. The expenditure of $143 million is necessary for them to continue to participate. On a comparative basis, many of their facilities are subpar. Unfortunately, spending $143 million is a band-aid that will not provide the program with a long-term competitive advantage. At best, it will temporarily reduce the gap between the Buffs and the top schools.

This issue could be addressed by re-focusing the purpose of athletics at CU. That won’t happen.

Like most universities, CU has chosen to expand their athletic empire. Good arguments can be made for de-emphasis or expansion; however, most college presidents endorse the rationale for having a strong presence in athletics.

What does $143 million mean to other organizations?

  • The website of Johnson and Wales University indicated that JWU increased student aid to $143 million for 2012-13.
  • The Bleacher Report stated that Alabama reported $143 million in athletic revenue during 2012-2013. This is an increase of about $20 million from the prior year when they were ranked 4th in the country for revenue. Alabama listed a surplus of $21.1 million. (Note: By comparison, a November 6th article in the Daily Camera stated that CU Athletics is more than $21 million in debt to the university and facing a shortfall of $5.6 million to budget this fiscal year).
  • In December, the sale of Frontier Airlines to Indigo Partners was finalized for $145 million.
  • Senior Housing News reported that American Realty Capital has agreed to purchase a nine-property portfolio of assisted living communities and development land for a total of $143 million. The eight communities and one development parcel are all based in the southeast and include 453 assisted living units and 187 memory care units.
  • In late September the Alabama State Port Authority approved a $143.8 million budget Tuesday for the upcoming fiscal year.
  • In the Q2 2013 Digital Startup Report published by Builtinchicago.com it was announced that 37 startups raised $146 million dollars in the second quarter of 2013.
  • In August, the New York Times announced the opening of North Atlanta High School, the most expensive high school ever built in Georgia.  The 11-story high school, with a 900 car parking garage cost $147 million.
  • In November of 2013, a Francis Bacon painting sold for $142 million.
  • The Illinois extension office released data indicating that in 2008 the major pumpkin producing states (Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and California) produced 1.1 billion pounds of pumpkins values at $141 million.
  • In April 2012, President Obama ended a six-month funding freeze to Palestine. He released $147 million to pay for infrastructure, education, humanitarian aid and health projects.

What does $143 million mean to you? Is CU’s decision to spend $143 million a necessary and responsible expenditure? How would you respond to CU’s athletic arms conundrum if you were the Buff’s AD?

 

Lady Buffs Volleyball Makes Headway with Mix of In-State and Out-of-State Players

The 2013 Lady Buffs Volleyball team posted its first winning season since 2006, by winning 17 matches and losing 13. In conference play, they were only 9-11; however, one of those wins included an upset of Washington, the eventual conference champion.

In 2006 the team was 17-12 overall and 12-8 in the Big 12 Conference. That year they were the only blemish on Nebraska’s record. The Cornhuskers were both Conference and National Champions.

The 2006 Lady Buffs featured a mix of talented out-of-staters (Alex Buth, Lauren Schaefer, Callie Webster, Ashley VenHorst, Austin Zimmerman, and Mallori Gibson) and Colorado residents:

  • Kaitlyn Burkett – Colorado Springs
  • Lara Bossow – Vail
  • Kristin Karlik – Colorado Springs
  • Amber Nu’u – Aurora
  • Ashley Nu’u – Aurora
  • Amber Sutherland – Glenwood Springs.

    lady buffs volleyball
    Nicole Edelman sets Nikki Lindow.

The team closed out the season with a loss to the Washington Huskies in the round of 32 in the NCAA tournament.

There have been six very long years for Buff fans and players between 2007 and 2012. Overall, they won 29.9% of their matches, 52-122. Their conference record was abysmal, 18-104; they won 14.8% of their matches.

Major contributors to the 2013 Lady Buffs team also included a mix of out-of-state players (Kerra Schroeder, Elysse Richardson, Alexis Austin, Joslyn Hayes, and Neira Ortiz Ruiz) and top Colorado players:

  • Emily Alexis – Brighton
  • Jessica Aschenbrenner – Denver
  • Nicole Edelman – Boulder
  • Kelsey English – Colorado Springs
  • Nikki Lindow – Erie
  • Cierra Simpson – Colorado Springs
  • Taylor Simpson – Colorado Springs

It is great to see a Colorado D1 program have success on and off the court, but it is even more special when it includes so many in-state players.  Go Lady Buffs Volleyball!

Bowl Not Likely for CU Buffs!

Spin makes a bowling ball travel into the pocket for a strike, it makes a tennis serve curve into the court for an ace, and it allows media writers and sports information directors to say nice things when the home town team is losing.

Such was the case in Boulder this past weekend after the 3-3 CU Buffs downed Charleston Southern. The media reported, “3 more wins and the Buffs go bowling.”

The optimism was refreshing but, such foolishness belonged on the comics page.

Last year there was a chasm between the Buffs and their PAC-12 opponents. A year later the Golden Buffs have shown signs of improvement, but they still aren’t ready for Prime Time in the PAC 12.

Realistically, a respectable showing in the last six games will be great and a win against a solid PAC-12 team would be a major step forward. A road win would be stellar! Three wins are out of the picture. The Punch Bowl is the only bowl Chip and his football Buffs will see this season.

More importantly, the improving CU Buffs have not increased the number of fannies in the seats. After all, the financial bottom line is the most important part of major collegiate football programs. Go Buffs!

CU Buffs

Lady Buffs Volleyball Deserves Better Attendance!

Historically, University of Colorado Lady Buffs volleyball fans have been spoiled. The lady spikers have been a member of the Big 8, Big 12, and PAC -12, arguably the best volleyball conferences in the country.

Most years the Buffs have fielded a competitive team, on occasion they have upended nationally ranked teams, and they have infrequently paid a visit to the NCAA championships.

Given the competitiveness of the program it seems only logical that attendance at home matches would be strong. Unfortunately, Boulder is a town that loves sports, but in the case of volleyball, the locals would rather play it than watch it.

A total of only 12,261 people attended all 10 home PAC-12 games during the 2012 season. By comparison, the record number of people to attend a single men’s basketball game is 11,363. The individual game attendance for 2012 was:

  •    415                  Utah
  •    704                  California
  •    757                  Washington State
  •    712                  Washington
  • 3,117                  Arizona State
  • 2,851                  Arizona
  •    701                  Oregon
  •    607                  Oregon State
  • 1,257                  UCLA
  • 1,140                  USC

In 2012, CU was 4-16 in PAC-12 play; however, they were very competitive at home, winning 4 of the 10 matches in the Foam Dome, aka the Coors Event Center.

Average attendance was 1,226 spectators per home PAC 12 game, including two extremely popular promotional nights (In the photo below players hand out goodies to fairies and princesses prior to a Halloween promotional game). Without the promotional nights average attendance was 787 people.

There are still plenty of opportunities in the 2013 season to watch the Buff spikers compete against the best teams in the country. Go Lady Buffs Volleyball!

Lady Buffs Volleyball

 

Another Financially Draining Season for the CU Buffs

The CU Buffs natives are restless.

This past Saturday, the following conversation was heard between two University of Colorado football fans at the Flatirons Mall.

The first fan looked at his cell phone and said “I just received an update of the score for the game between Arizona State and CU. The Buffs are only down 47-6 at half.”

The second fan quipped “The Sun Devils will be starting the second string cheerleaders in the second half.”

To which the first fan responded, “It sounds like the second string cheerleaders might have started the game for ASU. Didn’t you hear me say that CU scored 6 points in the second quarter?”

It is going to be another long and financially draining football season for CU Athletics.

Do Athletic Programs Lift the Boats of All Programs at Top Universities? – NIH Funding

College presidents, athletic directors, and other higher education leaders have been quick to defend their athletic programs in the light of recruiting scandals, seven-figure salaries for coaches, the Penn State atrocity, player abuse by coaches, and unsustainable budget and facility increases. Their claims focus on the value athletic programs bring to the university, how sports are the heart and soul of universities, how athletic departments lift all boats, increase the fundraising abilities, and make the universities world class institutions. Athletic programs are an integral part of the athletic experience, but their value to higher education is often overstated.

For the sake of discussion, consider the question, “What do the football teams look like at the schools that top the list for National Institute of Health (NIH) funding?”

In 2010 about $21.2 billion of NIH funding was distributed to universities. Two-thirds of that funding, about $14 billion) was distributed in 10 states (CA, MA, NY, PA, TX, MD, NC, WA, IL, OH). Colorado was ranked 19th at $283 million, or 1.33% of total funding.

The top 100 universities received $19.5 billion, or 92% of total NIH funding in 2010. The top 10 schools received 24.5% of the NIH funding, or $5.2 billion. They are listed below, along with their NCAA level of competition:

  1. Johns Hopkins University, $686.5 million, Division 3.
  2. University of Pennsylvania $577.0 million, Division 3.
  3. University of Washington $570.7 million, Division 1.
  4. University of Michigan, $565.1 million, Division 1.
  5. University of California at San Francisco, $537.7 million, no athletic program.
  6. University of Pittsburgh, $493.0 million, Division 1.
  7. Washington University, $449.5 million, Division 3.
  8. Yale University, $442.4 million, Division 3.
  9. University of California at San Diego $441.0 million, no football program.
  10. Duke University, $438.9, Division 1 football.

Four schools were from Division 1, four schools played in Division 3, UCSD did not have a football team, and the UCSF did not have an athletic program. In other words, academics take precedence at a majority of the top 10 schools on the list of NIH funding.

The 2010 athletic budgets for the schools in major athletics conferences follow:

  • University of Washington, $60.6 million projected revenue.
  • University of Michigan, $94.4 million projected revenue.
  • University of Pittsburgh, not available.
  • Duke University, $68.8 million projected revenue.

The funding from NIH is 6-9 times greater than the athletic budgets for these schools.

Pac 12 fans will be pleased to see that the current PAC-12 schools were well represented in the top 100 schools for NIH funding.

  • 3.   University of Washington $570.7 million, 2.7%.
  • 11. UCLA, $436.6 million 2.1%.
  • 12. Stanford University, $413.5 million 1.9%.
  • 24. USC, 242.2 million 1.1%.
  • 44. University of Utah, $166.5 million, 0.8%.
  • 55. University of California Berkeley $137.3 million, 0.6%.
  • 66. University of Arizona, $109.2 million, 0.5%.
  • 94. University of Colorado at Boulder $67.0 million 0.3% – does not include UCD.

These eight PAC-12 schools received 10.1% of total NIH funding for 2010.

The 2010 athletic budgets for these schools follow:

  • University of Washington, $63.2 million.
  • UCLA, $61.9 million.
  • Stanford, not available
  • USC, not available
  • University of Utah, $27.8 million.
  • University of California Berkeley, $69.4 million
  • University of Arizona, $45.0 million.
  • University of Colorado at Boulder, $46.6 million.

The data makes the case that both academics and athletics make different, but significant fiscal contribution to universities. College leaders are only kidding themselves when they overstate the value of athletic programs.