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!

Mack Brown reportedly stepping down

Walter White said:
USC has way more national championships and Heisman winners. UT is in the top tier, but there are lots of schools in that top tier and none of them are always "at worst a top 5 program at all times.
Click to expand...

There are a few teams who have much richer traditions than UT, your example of USC is a good one.

What puts UT into the ranks of the underperformers is their status as the highest income athletic department in the NCAA along with sitting in the middle of arguably the richest HS recruiting state in the nation. Historically UT has been able to almost take their pick of Texas talent leaving other schools to fight for the rest.

Even with a number of other BCS level programs in the state UT also is the most dominant college program in the state for media coverage and fan support.

Mack Brown has won a NC there and won a lot of games but you could argue that the NC came as a result of having Vince Young and with the talent available to him and the schedules they have played he should have won a lot more games.
 
Mack Brown spending a decade and a half at Texas is quite an accomplishment. Some analyst compared it to the closest thing to a "pro" cfb team and I agree from the LHN network, revenue, and it being such a premier program perspective.
 
I would love to hear that Austin sits on a fault line that opened up and completely swallowed that puss hole university.
 
If Saban was to get a stake in the LHN, it would be harder to fold that into a regional affiliate of a conference-wide network.

Just sayin.
 
Buffnik said:
You're on the right track here.

UT is going to be UT no matter who is coaching them. They've got too many resources and too much pull in one of the nation's recruiting hotbeds to ever be bad. They go 8-4 and it's cause for a meltdown in Austin.

But Baylor could go completely into the crapper if Briles leaves. That won't necessarily happen, but the potential for it is certainly there. And we could use any advantage for recruiting that state.
Click to expand...

Alfred91 said:
If Saban was to get a stake in the LHN, it would be harder to fold that into a regional affiliate of a conference-wide network.

Just sayin.
Click to expand...
Do it now.
 
Alfred91 said:
If Saban was to get a stake in the LHN, it would be harder to fold that into a regional affiliate of a conference-wide network.

Just sayin.
Click to expand...

If they were to give him a piece of the LHN you would think that they would put a buy-out clause in the contract for that specific purpose.

Of course that would be assuming that they would think ahead and not do something stupid which is not guaranteed when it comes to Texans and college football.
 
MtnBuff said:
If they were to give him a piece of the LHN you would think that they would put a buy-out clause in the contract for that specific purpose.

Of course that would be assuming that they would think ahead and not do something stupid which is not guaranteed when it comes to Texans.
Click to expand...

fify
 
Am I wrong or was our surge in the ninties directly correlated with Texas and USC being mediocre?
 
onealcd said:
Am I wrong or was our surge in the ninties directly correlated with Texas and USC being mediocre?
Click to expand...

Yes. But I don't know how much that really had to do with anything. They were still getting players. Oklahoma and Nebraska were juggernauts. UCLA and Washington were powerhouses.

I think the biggest thing that helped CU was that we recruited like Miami did by going into the neighborhoods and high schools that the blueblood programs thought were beneath them. CU football was built in the projects as much as anything.

There's still some of that opportunity today. There's also the opportunity to cast a wider net and find the guys like Gillam who are outside the primary recruiting grounds and don't market themselves.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that even if UT and USC are the top 2 teams in the country, they can only take 50 guys a year. In the scope of Texas and California recruiting (plus the national guys they pick up), there's a lot of cream left on top even after they skim theirs.
 
Buffnik said:
Yes. But I don't know how much that really had to do with anything. They were still getting players. Oklahoma and Nebraska were juggernauts. UCLA and Washington were powerhouses.

I think the biggest thing that helped CU was that we recruited like Miami did by going into the neighborhoods and high schools that the blueblood programs thought were beneath them. CU football was built in the projects as much as anything.

There's still some of that opportunity today. There's also the opportunity to cast a wider net and find the guys like Gillam who are outside the primary recruiting grounds and don't market themselves.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that even if UT and USC are the top 2 teams in the country, they can only take 50 guys a year. In the scope of Texas and California recruiting (plus the national guys they pick up), there's a lot of cream left on top even after they skim theirs.
Click to expand...
I've always felt that way about college football -- that a bad program can always sell the opportunity to start right away which the good ones can't. Getting under-the-radar targets is big for a program like CU.
 
cubuffs85 said:
I've always felt that way about college football -- that a bad program can always sell the opportunity to start right away which the good ones can't. Getting under-the-radar targets is big for a program like CU.
Click to expand...

To an extent. But what you really want are the big time athletes who also want to compete and have total confidence that they'll win the job no matter who is on the roster.

In the heyday of the Washington program, Don James had a great line he used with recruits: "If you come to Washington, we will be playing in Rose Bowls and competing for national championships. If you don't come to Washtington, we will be playing in Rose Bowls and competing for national championships."

The elite athletes who respond to that type of pitch versus "you will start right away here" are the ones you want to go to war with.

I'd actually rather recruit on just about any message besides "playing time" and then have the caliber of recruit talent rise as the success rose.
 
MtnBuff said:
There are a few teams who have much richer traditions than UT, your example of USC is a good one.

What puts UT into the ranks of the underperformers is their status as the highest income athletic department in the NCAA along with sitting in the middle of arguably the richest HS recruiting state in the nation. Historically UT has been able to almost take their pick of Texas talent leaving other schools to fight for the rest.

Even with a number of other BCS level programs in the state UT also is the most dominant college program in the state for media coverage and fan support.

Mack Brown has won a NC there and won a lot of games but you could argue that the NC came as a result of having Vince Young and with the talent available to him and the schedules they have played he should have won a lot more games.
Click to expand...

After a certain threshold you have diminishing returns on total revenue. When you pay your coach $5M and have the facilities, stadium, etc., what else is there? Lots of schools have similar or better facilities. Lots of schools have similar or better stadiums and fan support (half the SEC).

Florida, Louisiana and California have equal or better high school talent.

All of these schools are on relative equal footing, all things considered: USC, Florida, Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgia, A&M, Auburn, LSU, Tenn, Florida State, Miami, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Penn State, Oregon.

Not one of those schools is top-5 every year.

With Oregon and Nebraska you could successfully argue the recruiting disadvantage, but Texas does not have Phil Knight and Texas does not have the 100% loyalty of the entire state that Nebraska does. Neb has one school and zero pro teams and loads of tradition.
 
Walter White said:
Florida, Louisiana and California have equal or better high school talent.


.
Click to expand...

A lot of people and a look at NFL rosters would argue something different.

Those states do have tremendous talent but Texas puts more players into D1 by a small margin than any other state.

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1182411


California has the most players in the NFL followed by Texas


http://www.holyturf.com/2011/04/states-producing-with-the-most-nfl-players/

Most people consider QB to be the most important position and Texas produces more of them than anyone else.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page...texas-qbs-keeps-growing-adam-schefter-10-spot


Bottom line is there are a number of schools that have "all the advantages" but it is easy to argue that with the advantages it has Texas has underperformed under Mack Brown.
 
Walter White said:
After a certain threshold you have diminishing returns on total revenue. When you pay your coach $5M and have the facilities, stadium, etc., what else is there? Lots of schools have similar or better facilities. Lots of schools have similar or better stadiums and fan support (half the SEC).

Florida, Louisiana and California have equal or better high school talent.

All of these schools are on relative equal footing, all things considered: USC, Florida, Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Georgia, A&M, Auburn, LSU, Tenn, Florida State, Miami, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Penn State, Oregon.

Not one of those schools is top-5 every year.

With Oregon and Nebraska you could successfully argue the recruiting disadvantage, but Texas does not have Phil Knight and Texas does not have the 100% loyalty of the entire state that Nebraska does. Neb has one school and zero pro teams and loads of tradition.
Click to expand...
Not sure I'd put Penn state on there in light of some recent events. I also think A&M, Auburn, FSU are a notch down if for no other, they aren't #1 in their own state. Georgia, Miami, Oklahoma and Oregon I don't think they compare to others on this list, but we could debate each of these forever.
 
How is the University of Texas, a public institution, going to give a piece of their property (rights to the Longhorn network) to an employee??!?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
How is the University of Texas, a public institution, going to give a piece of their property (rights to the Longhorn network) to an employee??!?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In this case, it would be because his employment contract would include that he had certain obligation to basically be the star of the network (having a show, doing commercials, making a certain number of appearances, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top