Keith Miller - Opera Singer and.....Neuheisel hater?

[Tatanka™]

http://www.buffzone.com/ci_18070863

Colorado, Indiana and Wyoming showed interest in Miller. He chose Colorado and was part of the team in 1994 when Kordell Stewart threw the historic, 64-yard game-winning touchdown pass to Michael Westbrook that beatMichigan and hushed the crowd of more than 100,000 inside Michigan Stadium.

Miller said that game was transformative.

"To be a part of a game like that changes the whole character of your life," he said. "To know what can happen if you put that kind of work into something, it wasn`t just a Hail Mary. We practiced that play every single day. It was the last play we did before every practice, the day before the game.

"It was probably the only thing I respected him for, but (then-Colorado quarterbacks coach) Rick Neuheisel walked right down the sidelines and he said, 'There`s no way in hell we`re going to lose this game.` We had that feeling that there was nothing that was going to stop us. To be down like that and still know you`re going to win is something that you never forget."

I wish the interviewer had followed up on that! Very interesting. I guess the powers that be never asked Keith for his opinion before handing the job to Slick Rick! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[Wyo Buff]

http://www.buffzone.com/ci_18070863



I wish the interviewer had followed up on that! Very interesting. I guess the powers that be never asked Keith for his opinion before handing the job to Slick Rick! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

We didn't have a strong candidate pool. They probably should have brought back Barnett right then. I have a very biased view of this and Keith and I were actually suite-mates in Will Vill with Lepsis and Heath as well. My opinion was that Rick never really had control of the culture with the McCartney guys like myself, Keith, Heath, Matt etc.... We succeeded in 95 & 96 due to strong upper-class leadership and crazy amounts of talent. We really should not have lost a game in '94, '95 & '96. In my opinion, the lack of continuity in the coaching staff is why we do not have at least 1 more MNC. I think Gary would have continued the culture and been a great fit at that time. That said, I do not believe Rick thought he would actually get that job. We finished in the Top-5 in '94, '95 & '96. He was something like 34 years old with less than 10 years experience coaching when he was named to head up the CU program. His approach was much less organized and structured than the McCartney (Schembechler) approach and I don not believe it was as effective. Also, I actually think McCartney and staff recruited a different type of athlete. Think brawlers rather than finesse players. We lost our edge when the McCartney guys left. Gary tried to bring it back and was, at least briefly, successful. But remember, the whole Katie Knida thing was a Rick-creation. McCartney and Barnett have too much respect for the game and their players to create a carnival sideshow to attract the media; which is what the Hnida thing was. In my opinion, if Barnett would have directly followed McCartney, a different story would have unfolded over the last 20 years and we would still be among the elites. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[leftybuff]

We didn't have a strong candidate pool. They probably should have brought back Barnett right then. I have a very biased view of this and Keith and I were actually suite-mates in Will Vill with Lepsis and Heath as well. My opinion was that Rick never really had control of the culture with the McCartney guys like myself, Keith, Heath, Matt etc.... We succeeded in 95 & 96 due to strong upper-class leadership and crazy amounts of talent. We really should not have lost a game in '94, '95 & '96. In my opinion, the lack of continuity in the coaching staff is why we do not have at least 1 more MNC. I think Gary would have continued the culture and been a great fit at that time. That said, I do not believe Rick thought he would actually get that job. We finished in the Top-5 in '94, '95 & '96. He was something like 34 years old with less than 10 years experience coaching when he was named to head up the CU program. His approach was much less organized and structured than the McCartney (Schembechler) approach and I don not believe it was as effective. Also, I actually think McCartney and staff recruited a different type of athlete. Think brawlers rather than finesse players. We lost our edge when the McCartney guys left. Gary tried to bring it back and was, at least briefly, successful. But remember, the whole Katie Knida thing was a Rick-creation. McCartney and Barnett have too much respect for the game and their players to create a carnival sideshow to attract the media; which is what the Hnida thing was. In my opinion, if Barnett would have directly followed McCartney, a different story would have unfolded over the last 20 years and we would still be among the elites. Hindsight is 20/20.

Interesting take.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

We didn't have a strong candidate pool. They probably should have brought back Barnett right then. I have a very biased view of this and Keith and I were actually suite-mates in Will Vill with Lepsis and Heath as well. My opinion was that Rick never really had control of the culture with the McCartney guys like myself, Keith, Heath, Matt etc.... We succeeded in 95 & 96 due to strong upper-class leadership and crazy amounts of talent. We really should not have lost a game in '94, '95 & '96. In my opinion, the lack of continuity in the coaching staff is why we do not have at least 1 more MNC. I think Gary would have continued the culture and been a great fit at that time. That said, I do not believe Rick thought he would actually get that job. We finished in the Top-5 in '94, '95 & '96. He was something like 34 years old with less than 10 years experience coaching when he was named to head up the CU program. His approach was much less organized and structured than the McCartney (Schembechler) approach and I don not believe it was as effective. Also, I actually think McCartney and staff recruited a different type of athlete. Think brawlers rather than finesse players. We lost our edge when the McCartney guys left. Gary tried to bring it back and was, at least briefly, successful. But remember, the whole Katie Knida thing was a Rick-creation. McCartney and Barnett have too much respect for the game and their players to create a carnival sideshow to attract the media; which is what the Hnida thing was. In my opinion, if Barnett would have directly followed McCartney, a different story would have unfolded over the last 20 years and we would still be among the elites. Hindsight is 20/20.

At that point in time (December 1994) Gary Barnett was 9-23-1 in his brief tenure at Northwestern. Bringing him back at that point would have been quite a gamble.

Neuheisel / Simmons were the safe picks.

 

[Buffellow85]

At that point in time (December 1994) Gary Barnett was 9-23-1 in his brief tenure at Northwestern. Bringing him back at that point would have been quite a gamble.

Neuheisel / Simmons were the safe picks.

Didn't Albino come out and say that CU would not do an outside search for Mac's replacement, but hire from within?

 

[Unleash Hell]

At that point in time (December 1994) Gary Barnett was 9-23-1 in his brief tenure at Northwestern. Bringing him back at that point would have been quite a gamble.

Neuheisel / Simmons were the safe picks.

Logically at the time yes, but Barnett proved to be a helluva lot better coach than all those guys. Barnett would have been a questionable at the time hire, but a very very very smart hire!

 

[Wyo Buff]

At that point in time (December 1994) Gary Barnett was 9-23-1 in his brief tenure at Northwestern. Bringing him back at that point would have been quite a gamble.

Neuheisel / Simmons were the safe picks.

You are right on that Frank. With the benefit of hind-sight though, it would have been better to bring in Barnett. . . or . . . even DiNardo at that point. I respected Bob Simmons and loved Hankwitz and Neuheisel was probably the biggest risk they could take internally. I do not believe any of the candidates were the right choice. My bet is that there would have been quite a few people interested in that job at that time given the talent level and success over the previous 5-7 years. The thing that pleases me the most about the Embree/EB hire is that they have not only benefited from a knowledge of the "McCartney" way, they have also been with many different coaches and seen what works. Its really the best of both worlds right now. That said, I believe the critical decision point was when Neuheisel was hired and that was the wrong call. The dye was cast at that point (again . . . with the benefit of hind-sight) and we are still trying to recover.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Logically at the time yes, but Barnett proved to be a helluva lot better coach than all those guys. Barnett would have been a questionable at the time hire, but a very very very smart hire!

Neuheisel, like him or hate him, is still coaching NCAA ball. He's taken 3 different teams to bowl games - and won them. Whether he will be coaching (or not) after 2011 remains to be seen. His biggest problem was probably that he liked being part of the show a little too much. He was too "new school" at a program that had become great because of "old school."

Bob Simmons improved OSU over Pat Jones terrible finish, but never could get OSU over the hump after a good year in 1997. (Coincidentally the year CU went into the tank.) His extreme paranoia about the media and fans in general (sounds familiar - i.e. Barnett) did him in.

Barnett is unemployed and pretty much unhireable as a college coach.

 

[Unleash Hell]

Neuheisel, like him or hate him, is still coaching NCAA ball. He's taken 3 different teams to bowl games - and won them. Whether he will be coaching (or not) after 2011 remains to be seen. His biggest problem was probably that he liked being part of the show a little too much. He was too "new school" at a program that had become great because of "old school."

Bob Simmons improved OSU over Pat Jones terrible finish, but never could get OSU over the hump after a good year in 1997. (Coincidentally the year CU went into the tank.) His extreme paranoia about the media and fans in general (sounds familiar - i.e. Barnett) did him in.

Barnett is unemployed and pretty much unhireable as a college coach.

Neuheisel has run 3 programs into the ground both on the field and off the field.

Simmons had what 1 good year?

Barnett did some amazing things that Simmons or Neuheisel couldn't even dream of doing.

1. Take Northwestern to a Rose bowl. Look up the history of Northwestern football prior to Barnett, NUFF SAID!
2. Took Colorado within a fraction of a point to the national championship game
3. Won a Big Ten and Big 12 title
4. After the scandal with recruiting restrictions and limited talent, still consistently had winning seasons and went to bowl games.

Barnett was an extremely underatted coach. The scandal is what killed him, not his coaching. Barnett> Neuweasil. Barnett>Simmons

It was time for Barnett to go when he did, he was just ruined by some unfair things, but he was a helluva college football coach. A helluva one!

 

[leftybuff]

Neuheisel, like him or hate him, is still coaching NCAA ball. He's taken 3 different teams to bowl games - and won them. Whether he will be coaching (or not) after 2011 remains to be seen. His biggest problem was probably that he liked being part of the show a little too much. He was too "new school" at a program that had become great because of "old school."

Bob Simmons improved OSU over Pat Jones terrible finish, but never could get OSU over the hump after a good year in 1997. (Coincidentally the year CU went into the tank.) His extreme paranoia about the media and fans in general (sounds familiar - i.e. Barnett) did him in.

Barnett is unemployed and pretty much unhireable as a college coach.

Yes, Ricky is still coaching...and in the process of running his third consecutive formerly winning program into the ground. If he dodges the bullet after this year, I'll be surprised. All he's shown is that he can take over a talent laden team, win a couple of years and then steer the corvette directly into the lightpole.

Simmons, who by all accounts I've heard, was a great position coach and a pretty good guy. Some guys, however, are just not cut out to be HC, even if they are terrific position coaches.

GB got screwed, plain and simple. IMO, he is a better HC than Ricky or Simmons, no offense meant to Simmons, and got caught in the PC nonsense world. CU, instead of supporting him, served him up as a scapegoat. Was he perfect? No. Did he make mistakes? Yes. Was he the cause of the problem? No. When even your own alumni like Rick Reilly are taking part in the withhunt, it is damn near impossible to survive no matter who you are. GB's reputation was smeared in so many quarters it would be nearly impossible for any D I program to hire him now...and I think that is unjust. He got a raw deal.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

You are right on that Frank. With the benefit of hind-sight though, it would have been better to bring in Barnett. . . or . . . even DiNardo at that point. I respected Bob Simmons and loved Hankwitz and Neuheisel was probably the biggest risk they could take internally. I do not believe any of the candidates were the right choice. My bet is that there would have been quite a few people interested in that job at that time given the talent level and success over the previous 5-7 years. The thing that pleases me the most about the Embree/EB hire is that they have not only benefited from a knowledge of the "McCartney" way, they have also been with many different coaches and seen what works. Its really the best of both worlds right now. That said, I believe the critical decision point was when Neuheisel was hired and that was the wrong call. The dye was cast at that point (again . . . with the benefit of hind-sight) and we are still trying to recover.

Hindsight is always nice. It could be that 4 or 5 years from now we look back and think of Embree as a terrible hire. No way to know until they start playing some games. I doubt many people would have thought Neuheisel was a ****** hire in the spring of 1997, when we signed the best recruiting class in the country (or close thereto) and the head coach was 20-4 with 2 nice bowl wins.

As for Neuheisel's hiring - the 1994 Michigan game and the failed game plan in the Nebraska game probably got him the job, along with his charisma which certainly sold Albino. Simmons may have been a great father figure to the players - but he would never have made it with the media, with the boosters, with the CU faculty, etc. Uzelac is a bit of an enigma. It seems like Colorado is the only place he was ever extremely successful. He is coaching high school ball now.

DiNardo would have been interesting. But, like Barnett, he hadn't exactly set the world on fire at Vanderbilt. No winning seasons during his tenure. Timing is always an issue when it comes to coaching hires. I do not know the exact date Neuheisel was named CU's head coach, but DiNardo was hired at LSU on December 12, 1994.

9 times out of 10 when a head coach RETIRES (i.e. is not FIRED) the next head coach comes from WITHIN the program. That is simply the most typical way a coaching change is made. The idea is to create continuity, continue the success that has been present in the program for so far, etc. Whereas, when a coach is fired, typically the idea is to change the entire culture of the program - thus requiring an outsider.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Neuheisel has run 3 programs into the ground both on the field and off the field.

Simmons had what 1 good year?

Barnett did some amazing things that Simmons or Neuheisel couldn't even dream of doing.

1. Take Northwestern to a Rose bowl. Look up the history of Northwestern football prior to Barnett, NUFF SAID!
2. Took Colorado within a fraction of a point to the national championship game
3. Won a Big Ten and Big 12 title
4. After the scandal with recruiting restrictions and limited talent, still consistently had winning seasons and went to bowl games.

Barnett was an extremely underatted coach. The scandal is what killed him, not his coaching. Barnett> Neuweasil. Barnett>Simmons

It was time for Barnett to go when he did, he was just ruined by some unfair things, but he was a helluva college football coach. A helluva one!

I will accede that Barnett was a better coach than Neuheisel or Simmons. That isn't saying much, IMO.

 

[Unleash Hell]

I will accede that Barnett was a better coach than Neuheisel or Simmons. That isn't saying much, IMO.

Barnett was a good college coach. How many coaches have won conference titles at multiple BCS conferences? I know there are some, but I bet not many.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Barnett was a good college coach. How many coaches have won conference titles at multiple BCS conferences? I know there are some, but I bet not many.

That's a good question. But then, I am not aware of too many coaches who have left one BCS school to go to another, after winning a conference title at a BCS conference.

Nick Saban did it (LSU and Alabama)

 

[Mick Ronson]

That's a good question. But then, I am not aware of too many coaches who have left one BCS school to go to another, after winning a conference title at a BCS conference.

Nick Saban did it (LSU and Alabama)

though, technically, Saban didn't leave LSU for Bama. there was the Miami Dolphins in between. but, the point is sound regardless.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

though, technically, Saban didn't leave LSU for Bama. there was the Miami Dolphins in between. but, the point is sound regardless.

No -- and the only coaches I can think of who left one BCS school to coach at another, are those who left the original BCS school to go to the NFL, and then returned to the college game.

But I am sure there are some I am not thinking of.

 

[Mick Ronson]

No -- and the only coaches I can think of who left one BCS school to coach at another, are those who left the original BCS school to go to the NFL, and then returned to the college game.

But I am sure there are some I am not thinking of.

it's a short list....outside Gary. and Barnett could have taken any job in the nation in 96 or so. ND, Texas (horn boards used to talk about what if, Barnett was apparently Deloss Dodds choice to replace Mackovic but over-ruled by a booster or something, i forget). even just reasonable to top level success at two BCS schools is a short list. Jimmy Johnson, Les Miles, Jackie Sherrill (Pitt, ATM, Miss St.) come to mind. maybe Rick, on paper. Spurrier. Mack. Urban Meyer (Utah not a BCS school, but does win a BCS bowl). John Cooper.

 

[Wyo Buff]

Hindsight is always nice. It could be that 4 or 5 years from now we look back and think of Embree as a terrible hire. No way to know until they start playing some games. I doubt many people would have thought Neuheisel was a ****** hire in the spring of 1997, when we signed the best recruiting class in the country (or close thereto) and the head coach was 20-4 with 2 nice bowl wins.

As for Neuheisel's hiring - the 1994 Michigan game and the failed game plan in the Nebraska game probably got him the job, along with his charisma which certainly sold Albino. Simmons may have been a great father figure to the players - but he would never have made it with the media, with the boosters, with the CU faculty, etc. Uzelac is a bit of an enigma. It seems like Colorado is the only place he was ever extremely successful. He is coaching high school ball now.

DiNardo would have been interesting. But, like Barnett, he hadn't exactly set the world on fire at Vanderbilt. No winning seasons during his tenure. Timing is always an issue when it comes to coaching hires. I do not know the exact date Neuheisel was named CU's head coach, but DiNardo was hired at LSU on December 12, 1994.

9 times out of 10 when a head coach RETIRES (i.e. is not FIRED) the next head coach comes from WITHIN the program. That is simply the most typical way a coaching change is made. The idea is to create continuity, continue the success that has been present in the program for so far, etc. Whereas, when a coach is fired, typically the idea is to change the entire culture of the program - thus requiring an outsider.

I admit that my opinion does assert a somewhat anomolous base case. It is ironic that an outside hire like Barnett or DiNardo would have been a better choice for cultural continuity.

 

[Unleash Hell]

That's a good question. But then, I am not aware of too many coaches who have left one BCS school to go to another, after winning a conference title at a BCS conference.

Nick Saban did it (LSU and Alabama)

Nick Saban is a great coach, but he still didn't win multiple conference titles in different BCS conferences and he had a chance to at MSU. No I am not saying Gary is better that Saban, he just did something Saban didn't. Anyway, I just think Gary got a raw deal and the allegations ruined his career. But who knows what would happen if Gary coached a SEC team with SEC talent like Saban.

 

[dyemeduke]

I'm a GB supporter for the most part, but it wasn't just the scandal that did him in. I understand the scandal hampered his recruiting ability, but his inability to recruit well also did him in. Also, his loyalty to his assistants hurt him in my opinion, like many coaches. Short Bus needed to go a long time before they were all let go.

...but this is all beating a dead horse...

 

[leftybuff]

I'm a GB supporter for the most part, but it wasn't just the scandal that did him in. I understand the scandal hampered his recruiting ability, but his inability to recruit well also did him in. Also, his loyalty to his assistants hurt him in my opinion, like many coaches. Short Bus needed to go a long time before they were all let go.

...but this is all beating a dead horse...

All you sayis true, but you can't separate the recruiting from the scandal that wasn't. GB pulled some pretty good talent until he stopped getting support from CU on the recruiting trail. At that point, I think GB, like most anybody, threw up his hands and did the best he could.

The loyalty thing though, IMO, was to show AC's they could come to CU and have confidence the HC would not can them at the first signo f trouble. That was important tgiven the 1 year contract thing...

 

[buffalo30]

Wyo Buff is pretty much right on in what he says in this thread. I never cared for the Neuheisel hire. I have said for a long time that the 10-2 seasons in '95 and '96 would have happened without a head coach. Neuheisel didn't have anything to do with it. The players and culture were all McCartney. They were mature, talented brawlers. I was at the Michigan game in '97 and the real Neuheisel as a coach emerged right before everyone's eyes. I think DiNardo, Simmons, Barnett or Uzelac could have kept the system going for several more years and Neuheisel ruined it in 2 years. Then he gave a position on the team to a walk-on without any tryout before he left. The next coach, whoever it turned out to be was damned by keeping the person and was damned if he said to the person, sorry we can't honor the previous coach's promise. You know what I'm talking about. The last 3 years of the Barnett era and the last 5 year fiasco have left me worn out. After the last 8 years I can't help but think the Embree hire and his staff might be the right thing for Colorado football.