#Fire Coach Dorrell

[NW Buff]

The ocotillos are beautiful at springtime in Las Cruces.....

Hard to see from the practice fields in Albuquerque

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I think you are kidding yourself. Maybe there's a "get up for the big boys" factor that you can't replicate over a 12 game schedule. But all those losses by the PAC12 that I cited are because those programs are very close together in talent. The difference between #5 and #20 in recruiting rankings, year after year is huge.
The difference between #30 and #45 is likely close to zero. This is a very non-linear relationship that fans seem to think makes a difference.

I am pretty sure Matt Campbell would sustain that level as well. Please explain why you think he wouldn't. Is he surprising teams that they are soundly handling still several years later? I don't think so. They are beating way more gifted athletes over and over.

The Fresno State QB looks much better than the UW QB he lost his job to. Why? Coaching. UW bungled their OC hire apparently. Coaching matters.

But the G5 programs outside of a few aren't recruiting in the top 50 (Cincinnati and Memphis were the only ones last cycle at 45 and 47 respectively). SDSU was 62, Boise was 67, Fresno State was 72, Nevada 86, and Montana 198th. A few of those teams actually out recruited Arizona, and were basically the same as CU, so yes, those programs are recruiting at a level similar to the bottom end of the Pac 12.

Oregon - 6
Cal - 28
UCLA - 31
Washington 37

You're telling me there's a similar talent level between Oregon/UCLA and Fresno State?? Between Cal and Nevada? Washington and Montana?

Again, G5/FCS programs who play one P5 program a year will SOMETIMES have a great gameplan and "get up" enough to pull off the upset. None of them, outside of Cincinnati, UCF, maybe Boise, would make a bowl game in the Pac 12.

As for Iowa State, Campbell has won 3, 8, 8, 7, and 9 games in his five years there. That's impressive for Iowa State, but they were a trendy pick for the CFP this year and will likely fall well short. They got manhandled against Iowa and barely beat Northern Iowa.

Talent will ALWAYS win out in the long run in college football. If Campbell stays, he might have them in the 7-8 win/year range consistently with this level of recruiting and coaching his balls off, but he's not going to sustain 9-10 wins and become some perennial power. It's why he's likely to leave after this season.

 

[buffaholic]

But the G5 programs outside of a few aren't recruiting in the top 50 (Cincinnati and Memphis were the only ones last cycle at 45 and 47 respectively). SDSU was 62, Boise was 67, Fresno State was 72, Nevada 86, and Montana 198th. A few of those teams actually out recruited Arizona, and were basically the same as CU, so yes, those programs are recruiting at a level similar to the bottom end of the Pac 12.

Oregon - 6
Cal - 28
UCLA - 31
Washington 37

You're telling me there's a similar talent level between Oregon/UCLA and Fresno State?? Between Cal and Nevada? Washington and Montana?

Again, G5/FCS programs who play one P5 program a year will SOMETIMES have a great gameplan and "get up" enough to pull off the upset. None of them, outside of Cincinnati, UCF, maybe Boise, would make a bowl game in the Pac 12.

As for Iowa State, Campbell has won 3, 8, 8, 7, and 9 games in his five years there. That's impressive for Iowa State, but they were a trendy pick for the CFP this year and will likely fall well short. They got manhandled against Iowa and barely beat Northern Iowa.

Talent will ALWAYS win out in the long run in college football. If Campbell stays, he might have them in the 7-8 win/year range consistently with this level of recruiting and coaching his balls off, but he's not going to sustain 9-10 wins and become some perennial power. It's why he's likely to leave after this season.

The fact that the G5 programs are not recruiting in the top 50 makes my point stronger. That was sort of my point. Separation gets smaller the further down the list you get.
UCLA just got beat by who? Did you watch the game? Did they look "way more talented"? Not to me. Cal has out-recruited Nevada by how much but did they look like a much more talented team in that game? No.

Recruiting rankings suggest we'd see huge differences and we are not. We will by the 2nd half of the season because depth will be exposed. But right now, what is being exposed is GOOD coaching vs BAD coaching.

As for Iowa State, they lost to Iowa (currently ranked #5) by 10 points. By the way, how has Iowa recruited the last 5 years? Top 5? That's two very well coached teams with not very highly ranked recruits. See the game summary? Does this look like a trouncing?


Is it too much to ask for competence?

I've watched Texas stumble around for many years against less talented teams. Poor coaching destroys talent. When I watched well coached programs, you see talent bubble up. It's wasted when the coaches suck.

Of course recruiting matters but it matters little when the team is disorganized. KD cannot be allowed to blame this on the last 4 years of recruiting. That is NOT our problem right now.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The fact that the G5 programs are not recruiting in the top 50 makes my point stronger. That was sort of my point. Separation gets smaller the further down the list you get.
UCLA just got beat by who? Did you watch the game? Did they look "way more talented"? Not to me. Cal has out-recruited Nevada by how much but did they look like a much more talented team in that game? No.

Recruiting rankings suggest we'd see huge differences and we are not. We will by the 2nd half of the season because depth will be exposed. But right now, what is being exposed is GOOD coaching vs BAD coaching.

As for Iowa State, they lost to Iowa (currently ranked #5) by 10 points. By the way, how has Iowa recruited the last 5 years? Top 5? That's two very well coached teams with not very highly ranked recruits. See the game summary? Does this look like a trouncing?
View attachment 46983

Is it too much to ask for competence?

I've watched Texas stumble around for many years against less talented teams. Poor coaching destroys talent. When I watched well coached programs, you see talent bubble up. It's wasted when the coaches suck.

Of course recruiting matters but it matters little when the team is disorganized. KD cannot be allowed to blame this on the last 4 years of recruiting. That is NOT our problem right now.

I'm struggling to fully understand the point that you're trying to make. That CU is poorly coached? Completely agree. That recruiting AND coaching matters? Completely agree.

Where you lose me is the assertion that a few close games or wins by G5/FCS programs over P5 programs means they are just as talented and that certain G5 conferences are "better" than certain P5 conferences. Maybe that was more of a side point to strengthen your overall argument about the issue with CU not being a talent issue. Either way, I disagree with the idea that the MWC is better or the same as the Pac 12.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

I'm struggling to fully understand the point that you're trying to make. That CU is poorly coached? Completely agree. That recruiting AND coaching matters? Completely agree.

Where you lose me is the assertion that a few close games or wins by G5/FCS programs over P5 programs means they are just as talented and that certain G5 conferences are "better" than certain P5 conferences. Maybe that was more of a side point to strengthen your overall argument about the issue with CU not being a talent issue. Either way, I disagree with the idea that the MWC is better or the same as the Pac 12.

There is something too it though. I plotted up the average SP+ rating of each team and conference since 2013. The gap between G5 and P5 has narrowed considerably. If I could figure out how to post an excel graph, I would.

 

[NW Buff]

The fact that the G5 programs are not recruiting in the top 50 makes my point stronger. That was sort of my point. Separation gets smaller the further down the list you get.
UCLA just got beat by who? Did you watch the game? Did they look "way more talented"? Not to me. Cal has out-recruited Nevada by how much but did they look like a much more talented team in that game? No.

Recruiting rankings suggest we'd see huge differences and we are not. We will by the 2nd half of the season because depth will be exposed. But right now, what is being exposed is GOOD coaching vs BAD coaching.

As for Iowa State, they lost to Iowa (currently ranked #5) by 10 points. By the way, how has Iowa recruited the last 5 years? Top 5? That's two very well coached teams with not very highly ranked recruits. See the game summary? Does this look like a trouncing?
View attachment 46983

Is it too much to ask for competence?

I've watched Texas stumble around for many years against less talented teams. Poor coaching destroys talent. When I watched well coached programs, you see talent bubble up. It's wasted when the coaches suck.

Of course recruiting matters but it matters little when the team is disorganized. KD cannot be allowed to blame this on the last 4 years of recruiting. That is NOT our problem right now.

I think G5 coaches do a great job of taking kids who didn’t get P5 offers and getting them to play with a chip on their shoulder. The problem is that this philosophy doesn’t translate to a P5 school. It’s exactly what Hawk tried to do at CU. So it’s hard for me to take lessons away from that.

That said, I agree that there’s a bigger issue of simply bad coaching at CU right now

 

[Bliff Cranch]

Trying predict the CFB landscape five years from now is next to impossible but would it surprise anyone if by 2026, the top half of teams in what we now call G5 and the not-top 32 teams in what we now call P5 are in the same classification/grouping/division/etc. (whatever you want to call it)?

Would not surprise me at all.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I think G5 coaches do a great job of taking kids who didn’t get P5 offers and getting them to play with a chip on their shoulder. The problem is that this philosophy doesn’t translate to a P5 school. It’s exactly what Hawk tried to do at CU. So it’s hard for me to take lessons away from that.

That said, I agree that there’s a bigger issue of simply bad coaching at CU right now

See, I thought he was saying there are bigger issues at CU than simply bad recruiting right now

 

[manhattanbuff]

I think G5 coaches do a great job of taking kids who didn’t get P5 offers and getting them to play with a chip on their shoulder. The problem is that this philosophy doesn’t translate to a P5 school. It’s exactly what Hawk tried to do at CU. So it’s hard for me to take lessons away from that.

That said, I agree that there’s a bigger issue of simply bad coaching at CU right now

Especially in talent rich areas, G5 schools can field competitive teams since their admissions processes aren’t too difficult. That’s a major hurdle for many P5 schools.

 

[ShnaultzSaltNMaltAssault]

But the G5 programs outside of a few aren't recruiting in the top 50 (Cincinnati and Memphis were the only ones last cycle at 45 and 47 respectively). SDSU was 62, Boise was 67, Fresno State was 72, Nevada 86, and Montana 198th. A few of those teams actually out recruited Arizona, and were basically the same as CU, so yes, those programs are recruiting at a level similar to the bottom end of the Pac 12.

Oregon - 6
Cal - 28
UCLA - 31
Washington 37

You're telling me there's a similar talent level between Oregon/UCLA and Fresno State?? Between Cal and Nevada? Washington and Montana?

Again, G5/FCS programs who play one P5 program a year will SOMETIMES have a great gameplan and "get up" enough to pull off the upset. None of them, outside of Cincinnati, UCF, maybe Boise, would make a bowl game in the Pac 12.

As for Iowa State, Campbell has won 3, 8, 8, 7, and 9 games in his five years there. That's impressive for Iowa State, but they were a trendy pick for the CFP this year and will likely fall well short. They got manhandled against Iowa and barely beat Northern Iowa.

Talent will ALWAYS win out in the long run in college football. If Campbell stays, he might have them in the 7-8 win/year range consistently with this level of recruiting and coaching his balls off, but he's not going to sustain 9-10 wins and become some perennial power. It's why he's likely to leave after this season.

I think his point is, if we're asking for a top ten team every year then recruiting is going to matter a hell of a lot more than if we're asking for top 25 every year.

Recruiting matters but you're arguments aren't great. Campbell is 34-20, removing his first year, in a tougher football conference with no recruiting class better than 45th nationally. You're also saying he wouldn't win 10 games consistently with his recruiting. You're probably right but no one here is asking for 10 wins every year, we're asking for consistent bowling first. 2016-18 UCLA had 3 top 20 recruiting classes. They've made one bowl game since 2016 and they were 6-7 that year.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I think his point is, if we're asking for a top ten team every year then recruiting is going to matter a hell of a lot more than if we're asking for top 25 every year.

Recruiting matters but you're arguments aren't great. Campbell is 34-20, removing his first year, in a tougher football conference with no recruiting class better than 45th nationally. You're also saying he wouldn't win 10 games consistently with his recruiting. You're probably right but no one here is asking for 10 wins every year, we're asking for consistent bowling first. 2016-18 UCLA had 3 top 20 recruiting classes. They've made one bowl game since 2016 and they were 6-7 that year.

Glad you brought up Matt Campbell, as I love when we use the exceptions to (try to) disprove the rule. Campbell is a great coach. If you, or ideally Rick George, can find the next Matt Campbell to come coach for CU, I'm fully on board with the idea that recruiting isn't as important as we're making it

 

[Darth Snow]

Glad you brought up Matt Campbell, as I love when we use the exceptions to (try to) disprove the rule. Campbell is a great coach. If you, or ideally Rick George, can find the next Matt Campbell to come coach for CU, I'm fully on board with the idea that recruiting isn't as important as we're making it

He's a great coach that has never won more than 9 games. ****ing Macintyre won 10 games here. Recruiting matters for everyone.

 

[ShnaultzSaltNMaltAssault]

Glad you brought up Matt Campbell, as I love when we use the exceptions to (try to) disprove the rule. Campbell is a great coach. If you, or ideally Rick George, can find the next Matt Campbell to come coach for CU, I'm fully on board with the idea that recruiting isn't as important as we're making it

Well I wasn't the one to bring him up but he's no exception to the rule. UCLA = Miami, Tennessee, Florida state, Michigan, Texas. They're all perennial underachievers, compared to the recruits they get, at this point. Some more than others. Utah = Iowa, k state, Wisconsin, northwestern, Washington state (not anymore without leech), Iowa state. All make bowl games practically every year, with 10 win seasons sprinkled in

Christ even teams like USC make a decent argument. 10th best class in 16, top 5 classes in 17 & 18, 20th in 19. They went 18-13 the past three years with those players

Matt rhule took Baylor to the sugar bowl his third year. Exceptions to the rhule were valid when urban meyer coached Utah. Now they just make for a lazy argument. Recruiting matters, but talent isn't this teams shortcoming

 

[patebuff]

There is something too it though. I plotted up the average SP+ rating of each team and conference since 2013. The gap between G5 and P5 has narrowed considerably. If I could figure out how to post an excel graph, I would.

We can probably keep it pretty simple. What's the overall win percentage in head to head matchups of the MW conference versus P12 conference and win-loss record on head to head matchups between the two conferences, during this time frame?

 

[Not Sure]

Wait, are we debating how good our coaches are? Furk. Look, all you need to know about that was CU had all week long to prepare for Minnesota. All ****ing week. And that’s what we got. Minnesota scouted our offense and knew what we were going to run based on personnel and formation. Against our defense, they were checking out of plays all day long. They scouted our tendencies and had a plan. We had, well, I really don’t know what we had. We had Chev and his cool hat.

 

[leftybuff]

This thread is brutal. #coolhat

 

[somebody]

HC had told the AD "okay, we'll see what your boy can do with the offense." Now that he's **** the bed, HC will attend some OC led meetings and we'll see real CU football.

 

[Buffnik]

It seems a lot of the complaints about Dorrell are for him being exactly the guy we knew he was.

RG hired him. No surprises on what he was getting. It's on RG to make sure that the coaching staff and program infrastructure covers for the spots that are not and will never be who Dorrell is.

Not a recruiter.
We knew this from his UCLA time. So RG has to build recruiting infrastructure and also force assistant coach hires of guys who have a recruiting focus.

Not a promoter.
So RG has to hire video producers, social media marketing & traditional marketing infrastructure and staff in order to hype the program.

Not a system guru.
So RG has to make sure he understands the style goals KD has for his offense & defense then help him find the best coordinators within budget to deliver.

Then, there are the things that Dorrell is. He's a great teacher and mentor. He's got high morals and ethics. He's going to work hard to continually improve the program and make difficult decisions on people when it's the best thing for the organization.

The best way RG can support that when it comes to players is to make sure our player development is top notch. I definitely see the commitment there in regard to the facilities built, the S&C Coach hire, and things that have been upgraded with nutrition, academic support and sports safety. Still strides to be made, but it's easy to see how this has been a point of emphasis.

Last, and most important, RG has to find ways to increase revenues. New media deal ahead of the 2024 season will be a much-needed cash injection, but RG has to also commit more to creating a donor culture at CU while continuing to find ways to make incremental revenue gains as was done with beer sales.

If the above plan is implemented, it sets CU football up long-term to be a program where not just Dorrell but any competent HC will enjoy success here.

 

[manhattanbuff]

It seems a lot of the complaints about Dorrell are for him being exactly the guy we knew he was.

RG hired him. No surprises on what he was getting. It's on RG to make sure that the coaching staff and program infrastructure covers for the spots that are not and will never be who Dorrell is.

Not a recruiter.
We knew this from his UCLA time. So RG has to build recruiting infrastructure and also force assistant coach hires of guys who have a recruiting focus.

Not a promoter.
So RG has to hire video producers, social media marketing & traditional marketing infrastructure and staff in order to hype the program.

Not a system guru.
So RG has to make sure he understands the style goals KD has for his offense & defense then help him find the best coordinators within budget to deliver.

Then, there are the things that Dorrell is. He's a great teacher and mentor. He's got high morals and ethics. He's going to work hard to continually improve the program and make difficult decisions on people when it's the best thing for the organization.

The best way RG can support that when it comes to players is to make sure our player development is top notch. I definitely see the commitment there in regard to the facilities built, the S&C Coach hire, and things that have been upgraded with nutrition, academic support and sports safety. Still strides to be made, but it's easy to see how this has been a point of emphasis.

Last, and most important, RG has to find ways to increase revenues. New media ahead of the 2024 season will be a much-needed cash injection, but RG has to also commit more to creating a donor culture at CU while continuing to find ways to make incremental revenue gains as was done with beer sales.

If the above plan is implemented, it sets CU football up long-term to be a program where not just Dorrell but any competent HC will enjoy success here.

RG dismantled the recruiting infrastructure.

RG (apparently) didn’t discuss schematic preferences. We do not have an offensive identity.

RG lied to donors about his commitment to the items necessary to win. His commitment evaporated with the Dorrell hire.

So… We’ve hired a very expensive boy scout troop leader with major limitations on the fundamentals for a big time college football head football coach. We’ve extended an AD who’s not demanding that the coach recruit.

Seems like we’re painted into a corner.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

It seems a lot of the complaints about Dorrell are for him being exactly the guy we knew he was.

RG hired him. No surprises on what he was getting. It's on RG to make sure that the coaching staff and program infrastructure covers for the spots that are not and will never be who Dorrell is.

Not a recruiter.
We knew this from his UCLA time. So RG has to build recruiting infrastructure and also force assistant coach hires of guys who have a recruiting focus.

Not a promoter.
So RG has to hire video producers, social media marketing & traditional marketing infrastructure and staff in order to hype the program.

Not a system guru.
So RG has to make sure he understands the style goals KD has for his offense & defense then help him find the best coordinators within budget to deliver.

Then, there are the things that Dorrell is. He's a great teacher and mentor. He's got high morals and ethics. He's going to work hard to continually improve the program and make difficult decisions on people when it's the best thing for the organization.

The best way RG can support that when it comes to players is to make sure our player development is top notch. I definitely see the commitment there in regard to the facilities built, the S&C Coach hire, and things that have been upgraded with nutrition, academic support and sports safety. Still strides to be made, but it's easy to see how this has been a point of emphasis.

Last, and most important, RG has to find ways to increase revenues. New media ahead of the 2024 season will be a much-needed cash injection, but RG has to also commit more to creating a donor culture at CU while continuing to find ways to make incremental revenue gains as was done with beer sales.

If the above plan is implemented, it sets CU football up long-term to be a program where not just Dorrell but any competent HC will enjoy success here.

So RG hired a Head Coach who doesn't really have a grasp on the best system to run at this level, has never proven to be a dynamic playcaller, doesn't know how to recruit, and doesn't do any self or program promoting

His only qualifications for being a head coach at this level are that he has high morals, and is a great teacher?

Honest question: If Karl Dorrell had never coached at CU and didn't own a home in Boulder, would he have ever been on RG and LC's radar? There are literally hundreds of candidates that are far more qualified to run this program when you break it down like this.

 

[Buffnik]

So RG hired a Head Coach who doesn't really have a grasp on the best system to run at this level, has never proven to be a dynamic playcaller, doesn't know how to recruit, and doesn't do any self or program promoting

His only qualifications for being a head coach at this level are that he has high morals, and is a great teacher?

Honest question: If Karl Dorrell had never coached at CU and didn't own a home in Boulder, would he have ever been on RG and LC's radar? There are literally hundreds of candidates that are far more qualified to run this program when you break it down like this.

Honest answer: not just 'no' but 'hell no'. I also think that "let's make sure to hire someone Chev will work for" was a big factor.

But the situation is what it is and it's where we find ourselves. We lack financial resources to change coach so quickly, so it's incumbent on RG to make this work - probably until the 2024 money.

 

[Da Lama]

RG dismantled the recruiting infrastructure.

RG (apparently) didn’t discuss schematic preferences. We do not have an offensive identity.

RG lied to donors about his commitment to the items necessary to win. His commitment evaporated with the Dorrell hire.

So… We’ve hired a very expensive boy scout troop leader with major limitations on the fundamentals for a big time college football head football coach. We’ve extended an AD who’s not demanding that the coach recruit.

Seems like we’re painted into a corner.

You also forgot we hired a guy that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE ELSE wanted as their head coach.

 

[Darth Snow]

RG dismantled the recruiting infrastructure.

RG (apparently) didn’t discuss schematic preferences. We do not have an offensive identity.

RG lied to donors about his commitment to the items necessary to win. His commitment evaporated with the Dorrell hire.

So… We’ve hired a very expensive boy scout troop leader with major limitations on the fundamentals for a big time college football head football coach. We’ve extended an AD who’s not demanding that the coach recruit.

Seems like we’re painted into a corner.

And this is why I have no faith we are on anything close to the right track.

We will be lucky to replicate Karls UCLA run here. We almost certainly won't

 

[manhattanbuff]

And this is why I have no faith we are on anything close to the right track.

We will be lucky to replicate Karls UCLA run here. We almost certainly won't

It’ll be very difficult to duplicate that success since we’re in a substantially worse location for attracting prep talent. Plus, smart phones and social media were only in their infancy. Using the tactics that worked at UCLA in the mid-2000s isn’t doing us any good.

 

[skibum]

Honest answer: not just 'no' but 'hell no'. I also think that "let's make sure to hire someone Chev will work for" was a big factor.

But the situation is what it is and it's where we find ourselves. We lack financial resources to change coach so quickly, so it's incumbent on RG to make this work - probably until the 2024 money.

I honestly don't think he can wait that long.

The budget hole he will be in for 2022-23 is going to be too big. RG can't afford to have the stands as empty as they're going to be next fall.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Well I wasn't the one to bring him up but he's no exception to the rule. UCLA = Miami, Tennessee, Florida state, Michigan, Texas. They're all perennial underachievers, compared to the recruits they get, at this point. Some more than others. Utah = Iowa, k state, Wisconsin, northwestern, Washington state (not anymore without leech), Iowa state. All make bowl games practically every year, with 10 win seasons sprinkled in

Christ even teams like USC make a decent argument. 10th best class in 16, top 5 classes in 17 & 18, 20th in 19. They went 18-13 the past three years with those players

Matt rhule took Baylor to the sugar bowl his third year. Exceptions to the rhule were valid when urban meyer coached Utah. Now they just make for a lazy argument. Recruiting matters, but talent isn't this teams shortcoming

This is a complete load of BS brother.

UCLA - 64
Miami - 75
Tennessee - 63
FSU - 96
Michigan - 85
Texas - 71

Colorado - 44

Those are the win totals over the last 10 full seasons (2010-2019) of all those underachievers you just mentioned compared to CU. We were 2 wins worse PER SEASON compared to the nearest “underachiever” you mentioned.

Your terrible example highlights exactly why recruiting matters so damn much - those programs can muddle through lean years, bad coaching hires, and other problems, and still average more than 6 wins a season because they have talent that we don’t have. Man how I would love to underachieve like Michigan has the last 10 years averaging more than 8 wins a season.

 

[PAHIBuff]

Hard to see from the practice fields in Albuquerque

New Mexico State

 

[72grad]

Bill McCartney was not a great X's and O's coach. But he was one of the greatest recruiters college football has ever seen.

 

[ahoelsken]

Agreed. If the offense is the way it has been the last 7 quarters, the wheels will be completely off. I don't even think the offense was this bad during the 2012 season.

We haven't seen a QB sneak on 1st and 10 though.

 

[skibum]

Bill McCartney was not a great X's and O's coach. But he was one of the greatest recruiters college football has ever seen.

I actually thought he was a pretty good X's and O's coach from a strategic level - gameday tactical stuff wasn't his strong suit.

Making the switch to option ball, and then recognizing that an RPO style would be the future were representative of a damn good strategic perspective.

Game day decisions were a little iffy.

And recruiting was always ****ing lights out.