AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
2 scrimmages on Saturday and the Lambs are in trouble
- Thread starter BuffDad2020
- Start date
I have never called the DL pathetic. I think there is some talent with questionable depth. Maybe they turn out to be as good as you expect, but is it really that crazy to look at the group and think it will be somewhat inconsistent?
Being better than terrible is not really a standard.
BuffDad2020
Well-Known Member
Going into last season, did you have any expectation that the three Seniors were going to be as good as they were? Tupou hadn't played a football game in the better part of 2 years.
What everyone is missing about the D is that MM is a defensive coach first and foremost. Played D as a player. Coach D as an assistant for most of his career. As a coordinator, it was Defense. Won the Assistant Coach of the year as a defensive coordinator. It was MM who switched to the 3-4 and have been recruiting guys to play 3-4. There is more that enough to see the glass as half full vs. half empty.
10 years of bad CU football has left too many scared of potential success. Will we win the NC, nope. But we'll have a lot more fun cheering the Buffs than many are expecting.
I definitely had pretty high hopes for Tupou. Carrell and Kafovalu were better than expected.
I think MacIntyre has some impact on defense, but fans have tended to overstate it this offseason. If the defense has success, I will give more credit to Eliot than anyone else. Calling plays is a special skill set, both an art and a science.
I have been in the 7-8 win range for a while. Expecting the defense to have ups and downs is not the result of being some battered CU fan. It is looking at a lot of different new pieces on defense expected to do way more than expected of them in the past. I put up an O/U Thread on scoring defense a few weeks ago and not so shockingly, most posters had the defense taking a sizable step back.
The shirt will be burned after of course. I am one of the few my age that doesn't really consider CSU a rival. Just an annoyance.
A Mickey Mouse shirt might be more appropriate.
The logic on depth and Lopez:
He was part of our 2 deep and played a lot as a true freshman. We weren't very good then, and CSU had their way up front.
He's not been part of the 2 deep since, which led to him trying a new position.
If he fell out of the 2 deep because he quit trying, then we'd probably not be working so hard with him at the TE position.
If he fell out of the 2 deep because he just got passed over by better talent, then I think it's safe to conclude that we are deeper and more talented now.
That does not make us as deep or as talented as last year, just better than when Mac first got here.
So we've re-established for the Nth time that our D-line may take a step back and in fact will be somewhat better than our historic lows and last year's historic high.
When's kickoff?
He was part of our 2 deep and played a lot as a true freshman. We weren't very good then, and CSU had their way up front.
He's not been part of the 2 deep since, which led to him trying a new position.
If he fell out of the 2 deep because he quit trying, then we'd probably not be working so hard with him at the TE position.
If he fell out of the 2 deep because he just got passed over by better talent, then I think it's safe to conclude that we are deeper and more talented now.
That does not make us as deep or as talented as last year, just better than when Mac first got here.
So we've re-established for the Nth time that our D-line may take a step back and in fact will be somewhat better than our historic lows and last year's historic high.
When's kickoff?
cu62nu36
fascist tool
Or people that wear Huckster gear to a CU v USC game. Although in their defense that is probably all they own.
Lukeasaurus
Well-Known Member
The thing that bothers me is that they had 21k at their scrimmage. Wth CU... How much do we average. 5-10k?
Well it was the first public open house in a brand new stadium. Season ticket holders got to see their new seats, prospective season ticket holders got to try out and buy new seats. People got to tour the new club levels, alumni center, and locker room. They weren't all there for the scrimmage.
It won't matter. Right now they are excited about the new stadium. They are full of themselves and their season hasn't ended with their loss to the Buffs yet.
This year they will have higher attendance than prior years because of the stadium excitement, that has happened at virtually every other school that has built a new stadium from scratch, especially on campus.
History though also shows that CSU attendance starts strong and fades quickly. For some reason fans don't get wound up about seeing them play Utah State, San Jose, or Hawaii, or the rest of the MWC. Even the AFA and Wyo games haven't sold out frequently and that is with those schools fans buying as well.
They have a boost in season ticket sales this year but lets see how many of those seats are empty after they start 1-3.
For perspective even in the depths of our string of terrible seasons CU sold more tickets to games involving FCS foes than the new CSU stadium has seats. And don't forget that the average ticket sold in Boulder is substantially higher than in Ft. Collins.
I honestly hope it works out for them; not necessarily for the typical delusional fan we're familiar with, but for the city and for the students (despite my best efforts I can't rule out one of my kids ending up there). If they have some G5 success and get over their obsession with CU, it could be a pretty vibrant college football experience.
I think you're right, though.
that's some poor parenting.
Well, I drank a lot while they were in utero. At least that's what my wife tells me.
9 months (plus the nursing months) of a designated driver is in the top 5 reasons to have kids, for sure.
I did a masters program there though only spent a couple semesters on campus.
They proved in the Sonny years that they could be as strong as any program outside of the major conferences but the division between the P5 programs and the G5 programs is huge and widening every year. Even in a great year a program like CSU doesn't generate enough fan interest ($$$$) to justify them getting a share of a P5 conference revenue, isn't going to happen for them.
They don't draw TV ratings and even if they see a substantial jump in attendance in the new stadium getting close to capacity 30-35k isn't going to move any needles in conference meetings.
I think that the money situation is going to eventually force a shakedown of the structure of college football. The P5 conferences will form the upper level with maybe up to 5 additional programs brought in, CSU won't be one of those.
The next level will consist of the current G5 and the top FCS schools. CSU will be perfectly situated to be a power at this level. They can continue to play most of their traditional rivals plus some other regional additions. They won't have to try to compete in a financial arms race with PAC schools and B12 schools. They will a shot at winning their championships and their new stadium would be a perfect venue to host playoff games leading to that.
They and the other schools in the division would likely be able to play one money game per year at one of the top division schools but the game of pretending they are competing at the same level would be gone just as when a BCS level school plays an FCS school now.
The bottom of the FCS would join the current D2 and some schools might even go D3 or drop football all together.
Last figures I saw for CSU had the school subsidizing the football program (not including all other athletics, just football) at around $15 million a year. Football is important for school image and for campus life and to give alumni a rallying point but for a school like CSU in a time when budgets get tighter and increasingly scrutinized that $15 million is hard to continue to justify and with current trends to stay relevant at this level it is likely to have to go up over time.
There always been a debate around here about the difference between true depth and just having a bunch of guys who happen to play the same position. Last year, some said we had depth on the OL. That was met with skepticism due to the fact that many of the "depth" guys were untested. Decekoping depth is a long term process, but one I feel like the staff has done a pretty decent job with. They brought in two Juco guys to fortify what they had there. I'd say we have enough guys so that we won't be burning any redshirts on the DL, but the quality of those six or seven guys is still unknown.
Actually, yes it is. It's a pretty low standard, but it is a standard. It's also a higher standard than what we showed from 2006-2015. We are at the "we don't suck" stage in the rebuilding process. We have a long way to go to the "we are going to kick everybody's ass" stage.
I think these two things are at the root of the problem- if they would embrace being G5 and defining success by those parameters (i.e. a conference championship and a bowl win are successful seasons; appearances as the G5 rep in a NYD bowl is a great, once every couple of decades success) , the vibrant football culture could easily follow. However, they want to be P5 and have the same success definition as a P5 program (Bowl win is a minimum expectation, appearance in a NYD bowl is a successful season, etc.)
When they set themselves up to want the latter, November games against Utah State just don't seem that important and they don't treat it as such.
Damn; I thought you'd taught me a new word but now I'm thinking this is a typo for "developing."
I remember when I went to see CU play at UW in 2011; the fans there were so excited to be kicking the ass of an in-conference team. At halftime, I saw fans shouting "We don't suck anymore!" and high fiving. That's where CU was last year. It took them 6 years (and a coaching change) after that to take the next step.
I would hope we have moved past the "we don't suck" stage.
I don't think we have. I think last year was terrific, but it was probably an aberration rather than the expectation. And let me be clear about the definition of "we don't suck": it's a team that will regularly win at least 7 games a year. That's where we are right now, but I think there is reason to believe we are on the right trajectory.
Then we mostly disagree on semantics. Your expectations of the "we don't suck" stage are higher than that name lets on.
Perhaps I should say we are "slightly above average". However, my point remains: a "slightly above average" team has a long way to go before it is dominant. There is still a pretty striking talent differential between CU and USC, UW, Stanford and UCLA. There will be times when those schools have injuries or make mental errors that allow us to beat them, but it's not because we are the more talented team.
241Volcanos
Well-Known Member
There is a striking talent gap between CU and Stanford? I must have missed that last year.
Yes. There is. That doesn't mean we would never beat them. They could have injuries, they could be coming off a short week. They could be looking ahead to their next game. The outcome of a football game is determined by several variables. The most important one is talent, but there are others. Only a total homer would claim we are at the same talent level as Stanford.
There is still a talent gap. It's not very wide any more, though.