Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Dennis Dodd's hot seat rankings

This again? ****. It isn’t happening, I just don’t see it. CU just built the facilities, his recruiting is improving every year, his kids are (for the most part) out of trouble and their class grades and graduation rate are improving every year. Only a total embarrassment or media scandal will cause anything to happen here. He’s safe for 2018 regardless of outcome because with the extension Rick George’s hands are slightly tied and he’s trying to see through the rebuilding process. I think 4 wins and he’s in deep **** but he will be here in 2019 with an ultimatum that it’s now time to show what you’ve been building.
 
DBT said:
If he only wins 4 I will be the one who is gone.
Click to expand...
I still consider myself a pretty avid fan. But, over the last fifteen years, I have gone from wanting to see every home game live, to simply tuning in on TV. It is hard to justify the time and expense. My kids have never known CU to be great, or even competitive, in their lifetimes. Aside from 2016, CU has been on the wrong end of the scoreboard way too much. That takes a toll on even the most diehard fan.

[insert superfan/bad fan post here]
 
leftybuff said:
I still consider myself a pretty avid fan. But, over the last fifteen years, I have gone from wanting to see every home game live, to simply tuning in on TV. It is hard to justify the time and expense. My kids have never known CU to be great, or even competitive, in their lifetimes. Aside from 2016, CU has been on the wrong end of the scoreboard way too much. That takes a toll on even the most diehard fan.

[insert superfan/bad fan post here]
Click to expand...
The increase in quality of the TV viewing experience for sports has a lot to do with it for me.
 
TSchekler said:
I agree that when looking forward to year 6, what he inherited doesn't matter, but when you're comparing 5 full seasons of Hawkins and 5 full seasons of MM, what he inherited does actually matter. They are two completely different things.

If you want to compare the last 3 years of Hawkins to the last 3 years of MM, that would be a more relevant comparison.

Hint: MM has a .487 win % to Hawkins' .361% overall with a .297 conference % for MM and .250% for Hawkins.
Click to expand...

Yeah but this is now all this staff's recruits, and its been that for two years-complaining about how this was the worst P5 program in the country when you got here six years ago now doesn't matter.
 
ahoelsken said:
Yeah but this is now all this staff's recruits, and its been that for two years-complaining about how this was the worst P5 program in the country when you got here six years ago now doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
I'm not complaining about the state of the program when he got here as it relates to his performance last year, this year or going forward. I simply said, if you're going to compare his 5 year tenure to Hawkins' 5 year tenure, looking at what each of them inherited is absolutely relevant.

There are no more excuses for Mac in 2018, and there weren't any last year, either. MM did a phenomenal job of building the foundation of the program over the first 2-3 years, and IMO, the 2015 season should be the starting point of when you start evaluating MM's job performance via tangible, on field results.
 
TSchekler said:
I'm not complaining about the state of the program when he got here as it relates to his performance last year, this year or going forward. I simply said, if you're going to compare his 5 year tenure to Hawkins' 5 year tenure, looking at what each of them inherited is absolutely relevant.

There are no more excuses for Mac in 2018, and there weren't any last year, either. MM did a phenomenal job of building the foundation of the program over the first 2-3 years, and IMO, the 2015 season should be the starting point of when you start evaluating MM's job performance via tangible, on field results.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, Hawkins inherited a 7-6 team that was 1st in their division. MM inherited a 1-11 team, that was possibly the worst P5 team. I think from here on out MM set the bar in 2016. Good or bad for him? Even though I believe we still lacked in talent, behind a few of the Pac schools, he showed he can win with lesser talent. With the up tick in recruiting, we need at least 8/9 wins a year, with a 10 win year every so often.
 
BUFFS14 said:
Totally agree, Hawkins inherited a 7-6 team that was 1st in their division. MM inherited a 1-11 team, that was possibly the worst P5 team. I think from here on out MM set the bar in 2016. Good or bad for him? Even though I believe we still lacked in talent, behind a few of the Pac schools, he showed he can win with lesser talent. With the up tick in recruiting, we need at least 8/9 wins a year, with a 10 win year every so often.
Click to expand...
He is recruiting 0.491 winning percentage talent. Expect 6-6 with these kinds of classes unless development is exceptional.
 
Bufffan68 said:
If we had the $ I’m guessing it’d be bowl game or bust. IMO there’s only one for sure loss in the schedule (U Drub)...if we can’t win 6 I know I’ll be on the fire MMac bandwagon.
Click to expand...
This is waaaaay off topic, but your profile pic is hilarious--gets me every time.
 
Yeeeeeeesh. MM has been (slightly) better than Hawk, but Jesus Christ is that a pitifully low bar to get over. I'm not sure that the most persuasive argument is "he's been better than Hawk."

It's year 6. yes, the 10-win season was one of the funnest I can remember and the game against Utah to clinch the P12 south was something I won't soon forget. But last season made 2016 look like a huge outlier in retrospect. If MM can't get over the hump and AT LEAST go bowling this year, then I think we've seen all we need to see from him.
 
hawg1 said:
Teams that average 3 star personnel
Win about 50 percent of their games. Shown in data s few years ago. Stars matter.
Click to expand...

No ****? So every CFB team from last year is statistically doomed for .500 except for the top 16 teams huh? Everyone else averaged “3 star personnel.” So I’m sorry but I find that to be a gigantic pile of **** study.

https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings


Some teams do everything with talent, some underachieve. Some teams over achieve consistently with nobody players. As seen here:
https://n.rivals.com/news/rivals-top-50-recruiting-teams-of-the-past-five-years

Here’s the reality. It’s a little bit of luck, lots of study of players and really good coaching that matters. Stars don’t equate to better players generally, those players are just more game ready earlier. Seen all the time with how many 3 star players make the NFL and become pro-Bowlers.
 
Last edited:
Buffsrock85 said:
No ****? So every CFB team from last year is statistically doomed for .500 except for the top 16 teams huh? Everyone else averaged “3 star personnel.” So I’m sorry but I find that to be a gigantic pile of **** study.

https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CompositeTeamRankings


Some teams do everything with talent, some underachieve. Some teams over achieve consistently with nobody players. As seen here:
https://n.rivals.com/news/rivals-top-50-recruiting-teams-of-the-past-five-years

Here’s the reality. It’s a little bit of luck, lots of study of players and really good coaching that matters. Stars don’t equate to better players generally, those players are just more game ready earlier. Seen all the time with how many 3 star players make the NFL and become pro-Bowlers.
Click to expand...
You apparently don’t know the data. Stars matter in the aggregate. There are always individual exceptions but the overall data are repeatable and irrefutable.

1. Stars are correlated to winning percentage.

2. Stars and composite ranking are also correlated to draft round and making NFL rosters.

Old argument, but simple conclusion. Stars matter in the aggregate.
 
hawg1 said:
You apparently don’t know the data. Stars matter in the aggregate. There are always individual exceptions but the overall data are repeatable and irrefutable.

1. Stars are correlated to winning percentage.

2. Stars and composite ranking are also correlated to draft round and making NFL rosters.

Old argument, but simple conclusion. Stars matter in the aggregate.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. Well you can you use your aggregate and I’ll use common sense. For every Alabama there’s a Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas and Kentucky, ASU and Arizona, TT, Oregon state and cal. Teams who recruit some of the best classes and go nowhere. All of these teams have recruited in the top 50 for the past 5 years on average, i posted the link. For every Arkansas you have a (29) Washington in the playoff, (40) Wisconsin, Duke, Iowa, Utah, Louisville, Oklahoma state, TCU, UNC etc. rated in the lower half of the top 50 who have fantastic records in that time span.

It’s easy and lazy to say the best players make the best teams, everybody knows that already. But just because you have good players doesn’t mean you’ll be a good team. Obviously the better the player MM can get the better chances he has to succeed at a higher winning percentage. But I don’t buy this “.491 winning percentage nonsense.”

History proves that wrong and it’s irrefutable. It’s more than just having the best players otherwise USC, LSU, A&M, Florida would all be championship caliber teams and they haven’t been.
 
hawg1 said:
You apparently don’t know the data. Stars matter in the aggregate. There are always individual exceptions but the overall data are repeatable and irrefutable.

1. Stars are correlated to winning percentage.

2. Stars and composite ranking are also correlated to draft round and making NFL rosters.

Old argument, but simple conclusion. Stars matter in the aggregate.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely correct. But 90% of college football teams average 3 stars or worse in recruiting. Washington over the past five years is averaging a high 3 star rating (according to 247 Sports). The difference is they fill their class with high 3 stars and sprinkle in a few 4 or 5 stars while CU usually fills their class with middle to low 3 stars with the occasional 4 or 5 stars.
 
Hunchback Quaker said:
This is absolutely correct. But 90% of college football teams average 3 stars or worse in recruiting. Washington over the past five years is averaging a high 3 star rating (according to 247 Sports). The difference is they fill their class with high 3 stars and sprinkle in a few 4 or 5 stars while CU usually fills their class with middle to low 3 stars with the occasional 4 or 5 stars.
Click to expand...
Sounds like not a big difference then... maybe there are other factors? (Sarc font please)
 
Buffsrock85 said:
Oh, okay. Well you can you use your aggregate and I’ll use common sense. For every Alabama there’s a Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas and Kentucky, ASU and Arizona, TT, Oregon state and cal. Teams who recruit some of the best classes and go nowhere. All of these teams have recruited in the top 50 for the past 5 years on average, i posted the link. For every Arkansas you have a (29) Washington in the playoff, (40) Wisconsin, Duke, Iowa, Utah, Louisville, Oklahoma state, TCU, UNC etc. rated in the lower half of the top 50 who have fantastic records in that time span.

It’s easy and lazy to say the best players make the best teams, everybody knows that already. But just because you have good players doesn’t mean you’ll be a good team. Obviously the better the player MM can get the better chances he has to succeed at a higher winning percentage. But I don’t buy this “.491 winning percentage nonsense.”

History proves that wrong and it’s irrefutable. It’s more than just having the best players otherwise USC, LSU, A&M, Florida would all be championship caliber teams and they haven’t been.
Click to expand...

You are arguing the exception. I am arguing the rule of what the data say.

MM is now recruiting personnel, that on average, will go about 0.500 in the coming years.

I’ll stick with the data that clearly show stars matter in the aggregate.
 
hawg1 said:
You are arguing the exception. I am arguing the rule of what the data say.

MM is now recruiting personnel, that on average, will go about 0.500 in the coming years.

I’ll stick with the data that clearly show stars matter in the aggregate.
Click to expand...
.500 in conference play maybe. For CU, that would obviously 5-4 or 4-5 in any given season as the norm, which would mean 6-8 wins overall in any given year. That is about where CU is going to live in today's college football landscape in most years. Every 3-4 years we'll see the 9-10+ win seasons.
 
TSchekler said:
.500 in conference play maybe. For CU, that would obviously 5-4 or 4-5 in any given season as the norm, which would mean 6-8 wins overall in any given year. That is about where CU is going to live in today's college football landscape in most years. Every 3-4 years we'll see the 9-10+ win seasons.
Click to expand...

Agree. And a few years will be 4-5 win seasons. Maybe that’s what the CU masses want.

Improving staff and recruiting are the way up. That’s stating the obvious.

Otherwise, CU achieves “success” as you describe.
 
hawg1 said:
Agree. And a few years will be 4-5 win seasons. Maybe that’s what the CU masses want.

Improving staff and recruiting are the way up. That’s stating the obvious.

Otherwise, CU achieves “success” as you describe.
Click to expand...
Well, the idea here is that the baseline for CU football expectations should be 6 wins and bowl game every year. Of course there is going to be some weird **** that happens some years where they fall short of that, just like it happens at other P5 programs. The talent level that is being recruited here, though, is perennially 6-8 win talent, which is about where CU is going to be, short of a homerun coaching hire at some point. So, yes, I agree with you, that if we want our definition of success to be more in line with the upper third of the Pac 12, there will probably have to be a coaching change at some point to someone who puts the majority of his emphasis on recruiting.
 
Rebuilding a program has a likelihood of 17.45%. One of the hardest things to do, from the cellar to mediocre. Check.

MM hasn't done only a little better than Hawkins. Our program is many times better than we were when he got here. Hawkins left us worse off. There's really no comparison.

Can MM get us to the next level? I think all signs are yes if he can find and develop some interior guys. So far, he hasn't. He's band-aiding the front 3 and OLBs (that's 5 key guys) with Jucos.
 
buffaholic said:
Rebuilding a program has a likelihood of 17.45%. One of the hardest things to do, from the cellar to mediocre. Check.

MM hasn't done only a little better than Hawkins. Our program is many times better than we were when he got here. Hawkins left us worse off. There's really no comparison.

Can MM get us to the next level? I think all signs are yes if he can find and develop some interior guys. So far, he hasn't. He's band-aiding the front 3 and OLBs (that's 5 key guys) with Jucos.
Click to expand...
Cellar to mediocre = hard
Mediocre to championship = very, very hard

MM is not the one for the latter, if this if what CU wants.
 
hawg1 said:
Cellar to mediocre = hard
Mediocre to championship = very, very hard

MM is not the one for the latter, if this if what CU wants.
Click to expand...
I think that last statement is difficult to argue with. Nobody is positive, but there's not going to be a ton of argument.

Can MM get us to consistently 2nd group (2nd quartile in the PAC12)? I think that's quite possible.

I'd be happy for awhile being the #4-6 best team in the conference.

Colorado has a 23.8% winning percentage in the PAC12 and a 12.9% winning percentage if you exclude 1 amazing season.
Having a few 6-3 season would be pretty dang nice for awhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top