Could USC probation help Buffs?

[Costa Rica Buff]

One of Mac's best class was before CU was winning a lot. '86 with Bieniemy, Alfred, Kanavis, Hemmingway, etc. We were just turning the corner then, not a well known power yet.

You are forgetting one thing...CU was in the process of building Dal Ward when he pulled that class in. Mac and crew very successfully marketed Dal Ward as the next Taj Mahal of college football. There is a strong case to be made that Mac would not have landed everyone in that class had CU not been planning to build Dal Ward.

The point here is that mac didn't get the engine started on the program through on-the-field play. He did that through recruiting. He understood that having good facilities was crucial to the LONG TERM success of the program and has frequently commented that CU would fall behind the rest of the country if it didn't maintain competitive in this area (as has every other coach at CU since). Its no conincidence that CU's on field success has diminished in line with how its facilities have gone from Average to Below Average to Dismally Uncompetitive. Its also no conincidence that programs (who invested heavily in their facilities) that hadn't previously been able to beat us regularly in both head-to-head recruiting battles and with regard to on field success. The Flatirons simply aren't enough anymore.

Simply put, its certainly possible for a team to land a good class here and there despite having subpar facilites (CU does it every 3-4 years)...that's not debatable. But how many programs with crappy facilities consistently duplicate this success year in and year out? None that I can think of.

Let's agree to disagree on this

 

[Del]

You are forgetting one thing...CU was in the process of building Dal Ward when he pulled that class in. Mac and crew very successfully marketed Dal Ward as the next Taj Mahal of college football. There is a strong case to be made that Mac would not have landed everyone in that class had CU not been planning to build Dal Ward.

The point here is that mac didn't get the engine started on the program through on-the-field play. He did that through recruiting. He understood that having good facilities was crucial to the LONG TERM success of the program and has frequently commented that CU would fall behind the rest of the country if it didn't maintain competitive in this area (as has every other coach at CU since). Its no conincidence that CU's on field success has diminished in line with how its facilities have gone from Average to Below Average to Dismally Uncompetitive. Its also no conincidence that programs (who invested heavily in their facilities) that hadn't previously been able to beat us regularly in both head-to-head recruiting battles and with regard to on field success. The Flatirons simply aren't enough anymore.

Simply put, its certainly possible for a team to land a good class here and there despite having subpar facilites (CU does it every 3-4 years)...that's not debatable. But how many programs with crappy facilities consistently duplicate this success year in and year out? None that I can think of.

Let's agree to disagree on this

I agree CRB! God we need a permanent indoor football facility with track so bad! Now with this forgone revenue I'm worried that it won't be coming anytime soon even though it seems like the faculty is finally on board for the first time and it is in the campus master plan. CSU built theirs for 11 mil if I remember right. Its not bad but looks a little cheap to me. I think we could build a really nice one for 15-18 million when you add in the increased cost for the architectural fit the campus requires and some additional stuff that theirs does not have. If it was up to me I would build the practice facility first then expand Dal Ward. Once those two are done then start giving Folsom the face lift it needs. Its got great bones and it wouldn't take too much to make it outstanding. Its important to attract the fans with bigger replay boards and a nicer flatirons club etc, but I think you have to attract the kids to come first. I really hope some of our big doners will step up now with the move to the Pac 10. Somebody else mentioned on this board about the big doners actually putting together something in the range of 25 million instead of the 50 that was reported in the paper. I hope we could get something like this but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[sackman]

You are forgetting one thing...CU was in the process of building Dal Ward when he pulled that class in. Mac and crew very successfully marketed Dal Ward as the next Taj Mahal of college football. There is a strong case to be made that Mac would not have landed everyone in that class had CU not been planning to build Dal Ward.

The point here is that mac didn't get the engine started on the program through on-the-field play. He did that through recruiting. He understood that having good facilities was crucial to the LONG TERM success of the program and has frequently commented that CU would fall behind the rest of the country if it didn't maintain competitive in this area (as has every other coach at CU since). Its no conincidence that CU's on field success has diminished in line with how its facilities have gone from Average to Below Average to Dismally Uncompetitive. Its also no conincidence that programs (who invested heavily in their facilities) that hadn't previously been able to beat us regularly in both head-to-head recruiting battles and with regard to on field success. The Flatirons simply aren't enough anymore.

Simply put, its certainly possible for a team to land a good class here and there despite having subpar facilites (CU does it every 3-4 years)...that's not debatable. But how many programs with crappy facilities consistently duplicate this success year in and year out? None that I can think of.


Let's agree to disagree on this

Dal Ward wasn't built until 1990. Just sayin'.

 

[Unleash Hell]

You are forgetting one thing...CU was in the process of building Dal Ward when he pulled that class in. Mac and crew very successfully marketed Dal Ward as the next Taj Mahal of college football. There is a strong case to be made that Mac would not have landed everyone in that class had CU not been planning to build Dal Ward.

The point here is that mac didn't get the engine started on the program through on-the-field play. He did that through recruiting. He understood that having good facilities was crucial to the LONG TERM success of the program and has frequently commented that CU would fall behind the rest of the country if it didn't maintain competitive in this area (as has every other coach at CU since). Its no conincidence that CU's on field success has diminished in line with how its facilities have gone from Average to Below Average to Dismally Uncompetitive. Its also no conincidence that programs (who invested heavily in their facilities) that hadn't previously been able to beat us regularly in both head-to-head recruiting battles and with regard to on field success. The Flatirons simply aren't enough anymore.

Simply put, its certainly possible for a team to land a good class here and there despite having subpar facilites (CU does it every 3-4 years)...that's not debatable. But how many programs with crappy facilities consistently duplicate this success year in and year out? None that I can think of.

Let's agree to disagree on this

Wrong, Dal Ward opened in 1991, the Wyoming opener. The money from championships was the reason for that.

 

[sackman]

I think both Unleash and Costa Rica have valid points. Our facilities aren't adequate right now AND our head coach sucks. That's a toxic combination.

A really great coach can overcome poor facilities - June Jones at Hawaii is a great example of this. Great facilities don't always translate into great on-field performances, either. Minnesota comes to mind, here. To a lesser extent, so does Oklahoma State.

But if you don't have either one, you're going to be in trouble. Right now, we have neither.