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!

"Fan Appreciation Month" at CU (aka, We don't want Folsom empty on nat'l tv for Utah)

Being a member of the marching band, we have some rare access to the AD, and he spends a good amount of time with us. I can tell you from personal encounters that he is just as fed up with football as we all are. I personally think Mike knows how to run an AD and has success reaching out to the fan base. Like the Pearl Street Stampede was his idea, and it is turning around the businesses downtown. I feel like the top admin at CU are micro managing more than we know. They didn't say anything about basketball because at that point no one cared. They are bureaucrats and politicians and have jumped at every chance they have had to put their noses where they don't belong. If Mike had total control over his AD I do not think Embree would have ever been hired.
 
Just now saw this thread, and holy crap. I haven't read thru this thread so I'm sure this has already been brought up, but their main reasoning for this is undoubtedly to try to make Folsom not look so empty on national TV.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Just now saw this thread, and holy crap. I haven't read thru this thread so I'm sure this has already been brought up, but their main reasoning for this is undoubtedly to try to make Folsom not look so empty on national TV.
Click to expand...
Did you read the thread title?
 
Thank you fans! We have finally achieved our goals. We are the very best at awful. Our product is truly unwatchable. We no longer encourage you to tailgate. We support this coaching staff for excelling at futility. Thank you again, and go ***k yourself football fans.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Being a member of the marching band, we have some rare access to the AD, and he spends a good amount of time with us. I can tell you from personal encounters that he is just as fed up with football as we all are. I personally think Mike knows how to run an AD and has success reaching out to the fan base. Like the Pearl Street Stampede was his idea, and it is turning around the businesses downtown. I feel like the top admin at CU are micro managing more than we know. They didn't say anything about basketball because at that point no one cared. They are bureaucrats and politicians and have jumped at every chance they have had to put their noses where they don't belong. If Mike had total control over his AD I do not think Embree would have ever been hired.
Click to expand...

There is TRUTH to that statement.
 
Then seriously, if MB isn't being allowed to run his shop, but expected to fall nhis sword, why is he staying? I would have left in 12/09.....
 
leftybuff said:
Then seriously, if MB isn't being allowed to run his shop, but expected to fall nhis sword, why is he staying? I would have left in 12/09.....
Click to expand...

MB isn't the only one with this problem. I'm sure an informal poll of AllBuffer's would show that half of feal like we don't have enough control of what we're accountable for.
 
I don't think Mike is the problem at all. I think this is obvious. He's simply a puppet for the football program for Benson and Phil.
 
The psych warfare continues, in today's CU-Boulder Today:

New study examines record of football teams after coaching changes


November 14, 2012
Fire the coach? Not so fast says a new study of elite college football teams.
Professors from the University of Colorado and Loyola University Chicago studied what happened to the records of college football teams that replaced a head coach for performance reasons in the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division 1-A) between 1997 and 2010. Over this period, an average of 10 percent of FBS teams fired their coach each year because of the team’s poor performance on the field.
The authors used statistical methods to compare groups of teams that were similar except for the fact that one set of teams replaced their coach in an attempt to improve performance while the other set of teams did not. They assessed how coaching replacements affected team performance for the four years following a replacement. They found that, on average:
• When a team had been performing particularly poorly, replacing the coach resulted in a small, but short-lived, improvement in performance after a change.
• The records of mediocre teams -- those that, on average, won about 50 percent of their games in the year prior to replacing a coach -- became worse.
The statistical findings “suggest that the relatively common decision to fire head college football coaches for poor team performance may be ill-advised,” write political science professors Scott Adler of CU-Boulder, Michael Berry of CU Denver and David Doherty of Loyola University Chicago. Their study was the result of several years of research starting in about 2008 and was published online last month in the journal Social Science Quarterly.
Adler said, “For every team that does better following a change, there is another that sees a dip in performance. Moreover, there is just as much volatility in win/loss records of teams that do and do not replace their coaches.”
It is the first analysis of college football teams to track the effects of coaching replacement over several years. It also used unique statistical techniques to “match” teams that replaced their coach to teams that had been performing similarly but did not replace their coach. This approach provided a way to separate the effects of the coaching replacement from other factors – most notably past performance – that may explain differences in performance between teams with a new coach and teams with an established coach.
The statistical analysis doesn’t mean there are no exceptions, Adler said. Some teams that replace their coach do perform better – but the same can be said about teams that do not replace their coach. “What our findings demonstrate is that, on average, replacing a coach in an attempt to boost performance is not a winning proposition,” he said.
“Our findings have important practical implications for the high-stakes environment that is contemporary college football,” the authors write. “When a college football team’s performance is disappointing, the first and often only remedy administrators, fans and sports writers turn to is firing the coach. This is usually an expensive approach to solving the problem.”

“Despite the fanfare that often accompanies the hiring of a new coach, our research demonstrates that at least with respect to on-field performance, coach replacement can be expected to be, at best, a break-even antidote.”
Click to expand...
 
BuffNut99 said:
The psych warfare continues, in today's CU-Boulder Today:
Click to expand...


The statistical findings “suggest that the relatively common decision to fire head college football coaches for poor team performance may be ill-advised,” write political science professors Scott Adler of CU-Boulder, Michael Berry of CU Denver and David Doherty of Loyola University Chicago. Their study was the result of several years of research starting in about 2008 and was published online last month in the journal Social Science Quarterly.
Adler said, “For every team that does better following a change, there is another that sees a dip in performance. Moreover, there is just as much volatility in win/loss records of teams that do and do not replace their coaches.”
Click to expand...

Good news for us, our performance can't possible dip if we change coaches. No where to go but up.
 
If fairness, CU's performance since replacing Barnett with Hawkins is in those numbers. That skewed the statistics quite a bit.
 
Re: "Fan Appreciation Month" , We don't want Folsom empty on nat'l tv for Utah)

The admin probably thinks we're an FCS school.
 
What a load of garbage. By that standard, OU would have been better off keeping Blake. UT should have kept Mackovic. USC made a mistake when they hired Carroll, Michigan should have kept RichRod... The list is never ending. It's a self serving "study" used to justify keeping an incompetent coaching staff.
 
Creatini said:
Was there any long term notes? I'm not concerned about the first year but year 2 and 3 where you typically see progress. ASU, UA, and UCLA just from this year disagree with that study as well along with Michigan last year.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. The one year that least reflects coaching is year one. Full system is not implemented, staff is not yet in sync, and a very small number of players were recruited by the current staff. 2nd year is a far better indicator.
 
Yeah. The more accurate study would be to ask whether the program was better in Y3 of a new coach than it was in the last season of the previous coach.
 
Buffnik said:
Yeah. The more accurate study would be to ask whether the program was better in Y3 of a new coach than it was in the last season of the previous coach.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have the university focus on, you know, playing better football.

All that brainpower might have been better spent on X's, O's and actual coaching and stuff, IMHO.
 
The list of variables in that study are virtually endless. What about coaching staffs getting blown out by 40 per game. Do they get better? Only short term? What about schools that complete multiple coaching staff changes...is two better than three in four years? What a worthless study.

What about programs that are national embarrassments? Punchlines? Do they suffer through a coaching regime change?

We all know that replacing a coaching staff isn't a panacea. But we also know that we can attract better talent, and use it better by hiring an experienced coach with some name recognition. Couple that with some facilities, and public support for the program from out Chancellor, and we've got a start to--if not winning games, at least not getting blown out by mediocre programs.
 
Who's laughing now...every other college football program in America?

I smell another Nobel Prize for statistical anomalies for this groundbreaking research. CU wins again!
 
Damnit, they have statistics on their side now. Obviously we need to look at that study and see that the best move is to keep the coaching staff. Ignoring all factors in our situation, the law of averages says we'll be better next year than if we hauled in a new coach.
 
Well, at least Sackygate appreciates the vets! Just saw an announcement on our NROTC Alumni site that the our military tailgate that the university cancelled has moved to the NW corner of Farrand Field answering to the call of "Where's Sackygate?" Hmmmm.

Thanks. You guys F U C K I N G rule!
 
HotRack said:
Well, at least Sackygate appreciates the vets! Just saw an announcement on our NROTC Alumni site that the our military tailgate that the university cancelled has moved to the NW corner of Farrand Field answering to the call of "Where's Sackygate?" Hmmmm.

Thanks. You guys F U C K I N G rule!
Click to expand...

I don't hit many Sackygates, but isn't it the northeast corner?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top