Today, however, I got wind of some new MoneyTree data that pulled at my heart strings unlike any data that I had seen before.  In fact, I was all of astonished, proud, humbled and inspired.  The news?  In 2011, Colorado ranked 4^th in the country behind California, Massachusetts and New York for seed/early stage dollars invested into startup companies in the state.  The state has grown in leaps and bounds with 63 firms investing $290 million into 41 companies in 2011 compared to 2006 when 41 firms invested $89 million into 32 startups.

Wow.  I knew that Colorado was kicking tail, but this was really amazing news.  It backs up what I’ve been telling people for a long time:  Colorado is a top five destination for VC investment and I think it’s only getting stronger.

So why is our nearly average populated state so decidedly above average when it comes to starting companies?  It’s combination of many things (great universities, Techstars, lots of engineers, well educated people, great mentors and active community leaders), but one thing really stands out:  our entrepreneurs.

I think Colorado is breeding and attracting a type of entrepreneur that is unique to venture investing.  While driven, smart and motivated as all entrepreneurs are, the Colorado population seem to always be acutely aware of their local communities and always make sure to give back and pay forward to future generations of company starters.  Its you folks, who are creating the amazing companies that investors are interested in.  So much so that we are now the fourth most popular destination for early-stage investing.

So congratulations Colorado.  Congratulations to all of the entrepreneurs who are creating great companies and great jobs while never forgetting about their communities.  I’m proud to be a small part in your collective worlds.

But the coolest idea that I ran across was part of my office hours at Startup America.  The entrepreneur is Eric Fitzsimons and his company is IEmployVeterans.  The concept is simple, create a line of food and clothing products (akin to the Newman’s Own brand) that provides great quality at similar prices to other brands, but where 100% of the profits go to supporting our military veterans in their civilian job lives.  Currently 30% of veterans looking for work are unable to find it and the number is expected to rise in the future.

Eric has entered his company into a contest sponsored by Walmart, called Get On The Shelf.  In short, Walmart is crowdsourcing what new product to put on their shelves.  If Eric were to get one of his products sold at Walmart, it could have a huge impact on his efforts.

Eric’s first product is bottled water.  In a 100% biodegradable form, it’s simple, it’s neat and it’s easy to buy rather than your current brand.  And the profits go to those who help us so much.  Eric needs votes.

You can vote once per day and here is the link

Want to “meet” Eric?  Here he is below.  Good luck Eric!

S. 1933 or the “Re-opening American Capital Markets To Emerging Growth Companies Act” was originated in the Senate late last year and is now being considered by members of Congress.  With the House poised to pass their version of this bill at some point this week, there is no better time for the Senate to finish the good work they started and put their bill up for a vote — and pass it — as soon as possible.

Essentially, the provisions in the bill provide a regulatory on-ramp for emerging growth companies (defined as under $1 billion in revenues) for a period of up to five years after an IPO.  This on-ramp allows smaller companies to save massive amounts of time and costs that today are required to be spent because of Sarbanes Oxley compliance and other regulations.  Once the company reaches $1 billion in revenues or five years post IPO – they leave the on-ramp and comply with existing regulations.  The bill also allows for these smaller companies to communicate more effectively with potential investors – something that has become increasingly difficult post the Spitzer settlement which separates investment banking from analysts research.  A good summary can be found here at the NVCA website but suffice it to say that the bill has many provisions that will make the IPO process significantly less daunting than it is today.  Its easy to assume that all is well and good in the IPO market with the hype surrounding the Facebook filing — but it is also wrong.  Make no mistake.  We need more IPOs overall – both large and small.  They are good for the economy and create plenty of jobs.

Here at Foundry Group, we strongly support this legislation and are encouraging our CEOs to do the same.   Given the track record of our Colorado Senators Udall and Bennet in supporting entrepreneurship, I am optimistic that they will act in our best interest.  Still I urge them and other Senators to bring S. 1933 to the floor and vote yes for a smoother path to IPO.

I can’t begin to even explain how profoundly disappointed I am with Yahoo’s decision.  It wasn’t just the way the started this war (classless) or their choice of timing (blatantly opportunistic), but the fact that they have opted out of the club of companies that are innovating and creating jobs for this country.  No longer should we mention them when talking about the Internet stalwarts or listen to anything they think about policy or innovation.  Because they won’t / can’t compete and now decide to sue instead of taking responsibility for their current situation.

I would argue as a shareholder the most responsible thing for Yahoo! to do is to liquidate the company and put the patent assets in a trust that will pay out over the next X years.  Clearly, if they aren’t going to compete why stay in business?  Why do they employ engineers, product managers, marketing folks, etc. when good startups can use these talented people?  As a citizen of the Internet, I also urge a boycott of the company and the decisions makers behind this when they go to look for their next job.

Goodbye Yahoo!  As an early adopter and sideline cheerleader of you for the past 15 years, you’ve managed to destroy all of your goodwill in one stupid, poorly thought out and evil move.

“Amazingly, in this economy it is hard to fill key positions.  Zayo occasionally looks to fill senior positions.  Usually though, we are looking to complement our veteran team with recent grads who have engineering, IT, construction project management, and finance backgrounds.  We are looking for ambitious, hard working and entrepreneurial people, especially women and minorities as well as Iraq/Afghanistan veterans.  We are an ideal home for those who want to accelerate their career development and hone their entrepreneurial skills.

We are looking for the following positions:

1. Senior Product Management
2. CFO for internal business units
3. Recent grads in engineering (learn how the Internet really works)
4. Recent grads in IT (learn Salesforce.com and GIS)
5. Recent grads with an interest in operational finance
6. Construction/project management who understand telecom projects (or recent grads)
7. Recent grads with an interest in technical sales”

If you are interested, send your resume to Kellie Lemmel at Kellie.Lemmel at Zayo dot com.

First, to suggest that there is a supply constrain on lawyers is laughable.  Whether I’m wearing my client hat where I hire lawyers, or my professor hat (I am an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado), there aren’t nearly enough jobs to place all the lawyers this country is graduating.  In fact, the amount of applications to law schools has been INCREASING over the past few years and this is despite the costs going up and the number of jobs going down.  I’m shocked that the authors, one of whom is a professor and another an attorney at a large law firm don’t see these trends.  Perhaps given the rankings of their institutions these realities don’t effect them, but to the rest of us, it’s quite apparent that the system doesn’t suffer from a lack of supply.

Secondly, the idea that one can train good lawyers out of an undergraduate program is misguided.  Clients pay lawyers for judgment, first and foremost.  It isn’t about wrote laws and rules, but rather, whom do you trust to be mature and wise enough to help you with your issues.  I’ve always thought that law schools do a disservice by allowing students to go straight from undergraduate school to law, when they should be copying the business school model of pressuring prospective students to have real-life work experience before attending a graduate program.  As both a client, a professor and former attorney, I believe that on average, those who have some real life experience are better suited to attend law school and become lawyers.  In any event, I can’t imagine wanting to pay for a 21 year old recently-graduated lawyer.  What experience in life do they really have?  Even if a student goes straight though, at least they are 25 years which is a different world than post undergraduate.

The authors talk about paid apprenticeships, but this still doesn’t get around the problem that lawyers would then have no work experience outside of the law.  Simply put, I don’t believe the average graduate has enough maturity to be a lawyer.

The authors also put for thehe concept that we would still have JD programs alongside undergraduate programs.  This makes no sense to me.  At best, we create a two class legal system between the “haves and have nots” and at the end, I don’t see market economics (price) differentiating, rather some folks will get good legal services and others will not.  Passing the bar exam doesn’t mean one is ready to be a lawyer.

Finally, the $275,000 is based on the assumption that actual school costs $150,000 and that with opportunity costs for “bright students with attractive career opportunities” the number, fully loaded is $275,000.  I would have stopped at the $150,000.  yes, that number alone is too high, but the rest is a complete fudge factor guess.  As previously mentioned, many students (maybe most) don’t have a better option than going to law school and thus the opportunity costs are a made up number.

I do applaud their ideas that a legal education should be more well rounded.  At CU, we are actively engaged at trying to bring more diverse subject matter into the classroom.  This is a key for going forward legal education.

In short, I agree with the problem, but the solution doesn’t work here.

This is the first BDW course inviting community members to join  graduate students and engage in the graduate curriculum.  StartUp is immersive and transformational––both theoretical and practical. It begins with the premise that entrepreneurship, rather than being the result of genius and magic, can be learned;  Startup then proves this premise through the actual conception, build, and launch of an original product or service by student teams within a single semester.

Led by serial entrepreneur Robert Reich with a supporting team from a variety of sectors from the contemporary entrepreneurial world, this course puts students inside the mind of the entrepreneur and immerses them in the daily leadership and innovation challenges of the startup environment.

While its primary focus is the startup and what it demands, this course is also a clinic in thinking, decision making and mental agility that will benefit any area of business––not just startups.

Download more detailed information on the course and the application to enroll here, or email bdw.info@colorado.edu for details.

Here is a great video talking about the program, too: http://vimeo.com/32882215

As part of our trip, we are going to hang out for an hour or so and would like to meet with anyone who wants to come hang. We’ll be at the Advisors-in-Residence which is 320 East Vine Drive, Suite 120 starting at 11am.  If you want to come talk startups, you know where we are.

An Academic Entrepreneur to Build New Programs  – Director of Special Projects

I’ve always thought that Ann Arbor has all of the raw materials to become a hot bed for startup activity.  The University of Michigan is a great anchor tenant university, there are excellent students, professors and researchers and it’s a place where people want to live.  To date, I have been unpleasantly surprised with the general process, outside of some notable wins in the biotech and medical industry.  But that all might be changing.

In 2003, my trip led me to almost give up hope.  There literally was no activity on campus outside of university supported research.  I was told by one administrator that Ann Arbor would focus on biotech, medical and manufacturing and that software “was stupid.”  In meeting with students, especially in the engineering department, I felt there was more apathy toward entrepreneurship than excitement.  That trip left a very bad taste in my mouth and I wasn’t sure if / when I would return. (Outside of returning for football games.  That would be stupid to not).

In early 2009, however, I gave it another try and there were signs of life.  Community leaders (outside of paid U of M employees) began to emerge.  Community events and mentoring, as well as burgeoning campus support was seen.  I wrote a blog post here about my thoughts back then.  Instead of apathy, there was a strong level of frustration, which left me hopeful. Normally, frustrated entrepreneurs find fixes to what bothers them.

Fast forward 2.5 years and the energy and progress has leaped ahead.  I was energized by the grass roots organizations like Tech Arb and Tech Brewery.  The sheer amount of younger folks involved in company creation was exponentially higher than just a short time ago.  Instead of apathy and frustration, there was a real sense of excitement, accomplishment and hope.  Also, the whole attitude of the community seemed to have change.  Whereas Michigan has always looked poorly upon failure (which is a natural part of entrepreneurship), people that I spoke to inside and outside the innovation economy looked at these company builders as rock stars.  That, alone, is a huge component to a successful startup community and one that has been sorely lacking previously.  And instead of infighting among the different entities that try to support entrepreneurs, they were much more coordinated and congenial than they were during my last visit.  My partner, Brad, was equally impressed and wrote up a summary of his thoughts here.

There are plenty of other signs that others are noticing including the recent activity of California-based VCs funding Ann Arbor companies, Sam Zell donating $5 million to the law school for entrepreneurial studies.

There are two people, too, that really shined in my visit.  If you are part of the Ann Arbor tech scene and don’t know them – get to know them.

First up is Wes Huffstutter.  Wes works at the Tech Transfer office.  Normally, I avoid folks like this like the plague.  Not Wes.  He is totally tied into all the activity going on and is a super connector.  But he’s also a mentor.  Perhaps my favorite part of the trip was when one of the Tech Arb teams complained to Wes that he missed his mentoring office hours that day, as he and I spent the day together.  Seeing that type of reaction from a startup really showed me Wes’ range in helping out folks.  That, and he completely set Brad and I up to meet all the right people during our  trip with no work from us, whatsoever.

Second up is Dug Song.  This guy is a monster.  (Good type, think Cookie, not Godzilla).  I met Dug the last time that I was in Ann Arbor and we shared some thoughts about how to jumpstart the ecosystem.  Dug gets a ton of credit for creating and mentoring a lot of the activity locally.  If you want to see how thoughtful he is, read his open letter to Brad and I.  It talks about a lot of his and community’s accomplishments (not in a boastful way).

Oh yeah, and the weekend was fun too, as Michigan crushed Nebraska 45-17 and that didn’t suck either.

Bottom line:  Ann Arbor is getting its act together.  There is still a lot of work to be done, but I’ve never been more optimistic.