Walter White
Member
What is the vision for CU football?
I’m stating the obvious, but I think sustained football success is primarily a function of these three factors presented in order of importance:
1. Win at all costs attitude (admin & broad fan base)
2. Resources
3. Proximity to recruiting (Statistically, most of the best players play close to home, in-state or in-region.)
Every program will ebb and flow over time; that’s inevitable. Even the historical powerhouse programs go through dry spells, but many, if not most, eventually claw their way back to the top ranks because of the three factors presented above. Alabama is a perfect example. Nobody has a crystal ball when it comes to selecting coaches. Most of the historical powerhouse programs strike out more than once, but what separates them from the rest is their willingness to fire high priced coaches and then find another high priced coach. Also, these programs are willing and able to spend big bucks on coordinators, staff, facilities, etc. It’s a culture. You put a losing product on the field at a powerhouse program and there is tremendous and consistent pressure coming from all directions to turn things around; it’s not just a few hard core football fans in internet boards.
On a relative basis, CU does not score very well on any of the Three Factors, particularly #1, although #2 is much improved with the new Pac12 TV money. That said, I’m not sure CU would even want a win at all costs attitude. I’m not sure it’s healthy or desirable.
So what is the vision? What is the model? What are the expectations? What does “success” look like at CU?
Personally, I think success at CU looks like a middle of the pack Pac-12 team, with occasional runs at the conference championship when the pieces fall into place (CU’s 2001 B12 Conference Championship is a good example). What you don’t want to be, obviously, is the perennial cellar dweller, which is where CU is now.
To be honest, I think Barnett was a good coach for CU. I think he fit the model--middle of the pack results with occasionally bursts. Very few schools can maintain The Pipeline—replacing graduating senior superstars with up and coming superstars. Without that, you’re going to have to endure a lot of .500 seasons if you’re playing in one of the big conferences. The competition is fierce.
On a side note, the real test for Embree & staff is the aggregate performance against: CSU, Sac State, Fresno, Washington State, and Utah. To me, that’s apples to apples. You lose all of those games and something is wrong with the coaching. You can’t blame it on talent or experience.
I’d be curious to see what others here see as the model for CU. What other schools are doing what CU would like to do, and could do? Wisconsin comes to mind for me. Washington seems to be on the right track. They had 7 wins last year and a bowl appearance. I think they got the right guy in Sarkisian.
I’m stating the obvious, but I think sustained football success is primarily a function of these three factors presented in order of importance:
1. Win at all costs attitude (admin & broad fan base)
2. Resources
3. Proximity to recruiting (Statistically, most of the best players play close to home, in-state or in-region.)
Every program will ebb and flow over time; that’s inevitable. Even the historical powerhouse programs go through dry spells, but many, if not most, eventually claw their way back to the top ranks because of the three factors presented above. Alabama is a perfect example. Nobody has a crystal ball when it comes to selecting coaches. Most of the historical powerhouse programs strike out more than once, but what separates them from the rest is their willingness to fire high priced coaches and then find another high priced coach. Also, these programs are willing and able to spend big bucks on coordinators, staff, facilities, etc. It’s a culture. You put a losing product on the field at a powerhouse program and there is tremendous and consistent pressure coming from all directions to turn things around; it’s not just a few hard core football fans in internet boards.
On a relative basis, CU does not score very well on any of the Three Factors, particularly #1, although #2 is much improved with the new Pac12 TV money. That said, I’m not sure CU would even want a win at all costs attitude. I’m not sure it’s healthy or desirable.
So what is the vision? What is the model? What are the expectations? What does “success” look like at CU?
Personally, I think success at CU looks like a middle of the pack Pac-12 team, with occasional runs at the conference championship when the pieces fall into place (CU’s 2001 B12 Conference Championship is a good example). What you don’t want to be, obviously, is the perennial cellar dweller, which is where CU is now.
To be honest, I think Barnett was a good coach for CU. I think he fit the model--middle of the pack results with occasionally bursts. Very few schools can maintain The Pipeline—replacing graduating senior superstars with up and coming superstars. Without that, you’re going to have to endure a lot of .500 seasons if you’re playing in one of the big conferences. The competition is fierce.
On a side note, the real test for Embree & staff is the aggregate performance against: CSU, Sac State, Fresno, Washington State, and Utah. To me, that’s apples to apples. You lose all of those games and something is wrong with the coaching. You can’t blame it on talent or experience.
I’d be curious to see what others here see as the model for CU. What other schools are doing what CU would like to do, and could do? Wisconsin comes to mind for me. Washington seems to be on the right track. They had 7 wins last year and a bowl appearance. I think they got the right guy in Sarkisian.
