Rebuilding the Buffs...

[The Guest]

Please re-read my post and then, possibly, re-read it again. Think about it for a little while. Then re-read it again to make sure you completely understand it, then respond. It's obvious from your response that you have absolutely no idea what my "argument" is.

I re-read your post three times, and ruminated. What I gather is that you believe in our Athletic Director's world of priorities, making money (or at least not losing money) is more important than being invited to a bowl, in the near term. Thus, scheduling a likely loss, with a big payout warrants the risk.

 

[Duff Man]

Arguing about the scheduling, take #4567899.

 

[Darth Snow]

Hmm. I don't think this attitude thing is gonna be as easy as you guys say it is. I'm sure the kids will come into every game more prepared and better able to respond to adversity (they couldn't be worse), but I am worried it is gonna take a while to knock that bull**** that HaLk filled them with out of their heads. It is going to be VERY interesting to see how the team answers the first bit of adversity this year. I'm gonna be at the UH game, and my biggest fear is an early let down on O or D (a la 50 yard bomb against CSU 2 years ago). If that happens, I'm terrified they won't recover.

 

[sackman]

I re-read your post three times, and ruminated. What I gather is that you believe in our Athletic Director's world of priorities, making money (or at least not losing money) is more important than being invited to a bowl, in the near term. Thus, scheduling a likely loss, with a big payout warrants the risk.

I made no judgements one way or the other about whether it was a good strategy. I merely stated that I believe that Bohn would probably prefer to not go to a bowl, given the fact that doing so typically costs more money than it earns. Embree will be given a honeymoon period to get things going. A bowl game isn't really expected this year. It wasn't expected before the game with OSU was scheduled, and it's certainly not expected now. He has a very tight budget to work with this year, before the money starts falling out of the sky.

 

[sackman]

Hmm. I don't think this attitude thing is gonna be as easy as you guys say it is. I'm sure the kids will come into every game more prepared and better able to respond to adversity (they couldn't be worse), but I am worried it is gonna take a while to knock that bull**** that HaLk filled them with out of their heads. It is going to be VERY interesting to see how the team answers the first bit of adversity this year. I'm gonna be at the UH game, and my biggest fear is an early let down on O or D (a la 50 yard bomb against CSU 2 years ago). If that happens, I'm terrified they won't recover.

Deprogramming these kids could take some time. I get the impression that Embree & his staff aren't interested in a long, drawn out attitude adjustment period.

 

[Buffnik]

Deprogramming these kids could take some time. I get the impression that Embree & his staff aren't interested in a long, drawn out attitude adjustment period.

I think that the intensity of spring practices and the winter and summer conditioning were designed to fix the attitude as much as they were to develop the players physically. Every single exercise of every single training has been under pressure and set up as a competition. I fully expect that going through that will have made this team mentally tough while also pulling the guys together. One of the great signs is that our most talented players responded well to it.

 

[sackman]

I think that the intensity of spring practices and the winter and summer conditioning were designed to fix the attitude as much as they were to develop the players physically. Every single exercise of every single training has been under pressure and set up as a competition. I fully expect that going through that will have made this team mentally tough while also pulling the guys together. One of the great signs is that our most talented players responded well to it.

While I think you're right, I also think Snow has a point. These players have had nothing but a steady diet of "just work on a couple little things" and "get your horns out", and "cinch it up", since they stepped foot on campus. It could take some time before they figure out that working on a couple little things isn't going to translate into wins. If we're lucky, most of them will have figured that out for themselves. But remember that Hawkins recruited these guys, and so there's a connection there.

 

[Mick Ronson]

i think most of the players surely figured out they were at a decided coaching disadvantage on Saturdays. losing 66% of your games will do that. the ones that want to play eggtoss on Sunday after a loss are going to have to shape up/ship out.

 

[CUFan]

More losses? That's what we had the last 5 years. Not this crap again. The time to win is now. I understand what you're saying but this change wasn't made so CU has a winning season in another 5 years I hope.

+1. I recognize this is an uphill battle for the new staff, but we need to get this thing rolling now. Most of you are arguing that we will not be very good in the first two years due to a tough schedule in Year 1 and a gap in player experience in Year 2. Truthful arguments, but downright depressing. I sure hope we don't have more excuses by Year 3, like the losses in Years 1 and 2 really hindered recruiting.

 

[ThndringHerd]

When Embree was hired, it was a signal that we were going the full-on rebuild route. Could be 5-6 years before we even know if Embree was a good hire. Arguably just as big a rebuilding job as Mac had, and no Gordon Gee on the horizon. Embree and Bieniemy are getting some good early traction recruiting skill players, which is a positive. Hopefully Brown will get enough national cache over the next 2-3 yrs to start pulling in top-level safety recruits, which IMO is the key to building a sound defense.

It's very nice to have Jones & Dillon in the program at this point. I think they're both going to be players and the staff may manage to cobble together a bowl season behind those two even without a rock solid supporting cast. Really it's hope and wait at this point. The staff is going to have to prove (re-prove?) that they can coach-em-up, and the University and fans need to make an effort to show that we have a long term commitment to this staff. No recruit wants to come into a situation where they're losing 7-8 games a year, or they're worried the coach might be gone in a year or two.

The hope is that we can manage some quality wins and a decent bowl sometime over the next 4 years at which point we should start getting more interest from top-flight recruits. That would put us on par to be competing for conference titles 6-8 yrs down the road - which is really how long I think it will take even if everything goes well. Just hope the admin and the average CU fan have the patience and commitment to see it through.

 

[Mick Ronson]

when Embree was hired, it was a signal that we couldn't hire a top guy.

and that Bohn saw that to keep his job he'd ally himself with the Mac faction among donors by casting his fate with them with an Embree hire.

i like everything i hear from JE but the truth is the guy has been passed over for OC jobs at UCLA.

now he's the HC at Colorado. no way to know what next season will be like.

 

[jahbrahakala]

Interesting view on leadership. My view was Hawkins put too much responsibility in the player's hands as to developing leadership. My hope is Embree harnesses what is here and gives them the leadership missing with Hawkins.

 

[BlackNGold]

when Embree was hired, it was a signal that we couldn't hire a top guy.

and that Bohn saw that to keep his job he'd ally himself with the Mac faction among donors by casting his fate with them with an Embree hire.

i like everything i hear from JE but the truth is the guy has been passed over for OC jobs at UCLA.

now he's the HC at Colorado. no way to know what next season will be like.

I don't really agree with this. First Bohn wanted Calhoun or Belotti but he was not in control of the hiring process, the search committee was. Second, the search committee wanted someone with CU ties and were not all that interested in a big name coach. I know we could of hired a name coach but the people in charge were not interested in that...supposedly we hired a top coach last time.

 

[Mick Ronson]

I don't really agree with this. First Bohn wanted Calhoun or Belotti but he was not in control of the hiring process, the search committee was. Second, the search committee wanted someone with CU ties and were not all that interested in a big name coach. I know we could of hired a name coach but the people in charge were not interested in that...supposedly we hired a top coach last time.

i don't know about this. you may know more about this than me. seems to me, however, that Calhoun was a decided non-fave with CU people. i, for one, liked Calhoun...but that wasn't popular around here (most were some kind of back to the past Mac era hire). the idea that some "committee" wanted a no namer seems suspect to me.

i think Bohn latched himself to that Mac faction...because that's how it was going to get done. or not. a 5 win Calhoun looks like a bad hire. a 5 win Embree hire is optimistic with the donors.

 

[sackman]

a 5 win Calhoun looks like a bad hire. a 5 win Embree hire is optimistic with the donors.

I think that's absolutely accurate. Embree is going to enjoy a certain level of leeway that other coaches wouldn't get. Les Miles would have been expected to come in here and win 8 games, no excuses.

Embree was the safest of the safe hires. Embree, Bienemy and McCartney would have all been guys that had they failed, Bohn would be given another chance. Hire Belotti, Calhoun, Miles (snark), or the guy from Alabama (name escapes me), and they fail then Bohn goes down with them. Among the three of Embree, Bienemy and Mac, Embree is the safest. He's a Colorado native. He has no baggage around here like the other two. He is a clean slate.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I made no judgements one way or the other about whether it was a good strategy. I merely stated that I believe that Bohn would probably prefer to not go to a bowl, given the fact that doing so typically costs more money than it earns. Embree will be given a honeymoon period to get things going. A bowl game isn't really expected this year. It wasn't expected before the game with OSU was scheduled, and it's certainly not expected now. He has a very tight budget to work with this year, before the money starts falling out of the sky.

This is an interesting discussion. I do think that CU has historically LOST MONEY on bowl games, but as I understand it - MOST TEAMS lose money on bowl games. When the bowl payout is $2 million or less, and that money is split amongst the members of the conference -- the amount any given team takes home from their own bowl game is, generally speaking, going to be less than they spend on traveling the entire team, family members, University brass, etc. I.e. every team who plays in a bowl game not named BCS loses money on bowl games. If I recall correctly, there was a decent uproar in the Big 12 conference a few years back when Colorado, OSU, and some other schools asked to be paid by the conference to recover for their losses. I believe the Big 12 did pay, if I remember correctly.

I do believe that CU has historically paid for their athletic department with their football revenue - and they get more football revenue by having marquee football games on the schedule. CU has always been willing to take a loss to a marquee opponent, if the price is right.

 

[Del]

You can basically boil this thread down to three words: Being Poor SUCKS!!

 

[BlackNGold]

i don't know about this. you may know more about this than me. seems to me, however, that Calhoun was a decided non-fave with CU people. i, for one, liked Calhoun...but that wasn't popular around here (most were some kind of back to the past Mac era hire). the idea that some "committee" wanted a no namer seems suspect to me.

i think Bohn latched himself to that Mac faction...because that's how it was going to get done. or not. a 5 win Calhoun looks like a bad hire. a 5 win Embree hire is optimistic with the donors.

It was not that the committee wanted a no namer but they did not want a name coach just to have a big name coach. When you go after a "Big Name" guy it is a different process - it is different than bringing in guys that are on there way. Les Miles or Mike Belloti are not going to come in to interview unless they are assured ahead of time they have the job...they are not going through a selection process they want to be pre-selected. The process did not lend itself to going after a Miles or a Bellotti or even a Calhoun and the process was important to the committee. Calhoun was Bohn's first choice but it was not going to happen. The link to Mac was not important...but knowledge of CU was important. Some felt that Hawkins failed because he had no idea of what CU is about. Embree and almost every coach on this staff are here because they want to be here - almost everyone of them could have a good job in the pros or college with probably more pay.

 

[Quattro]

Embree did pass up a OC gig for the Bills but passed it up to mentor under Mike Shanahan and EB turned down the OC job at USC....just a FYI.

 

[buffsyko]

CU needs wins and to show recruits the program is coming back. I don't mind the OSU game, CU needs the $$$ but in the future, wins not bragging about playing a tough OOC schedule and losing those games will be better in the long run.

 

[sackman]

For the next two years, CU has CSU and Fresno on the ooc schedule. Frankly, those should both be games CU should win easily. I think they could stand to add a more challenging BCS opponent to the schedule both years. My preference would be a team back East. An ACC or Big East team. Cincinnati, Louisville, Syracuse, BC, UNC, Virginia, Clemson, etc.

 

[Dark Bohner]

For the next two years, CU has CSU and Fresno on the ooc schedule. Frankly, those should both be games CU should win easily. I think they could stand to add a more challenging BCS opponent to the schedule both years. My preference would be a team back East. An ACC or Big East team. Cincinnati, Louisville, Syracuse, BC, UNC, Virginia, Clemson, etc.

This couldn't be more wrong. Fresno is an absolute terror when it comes to playing BCS opponents. In the last 3 years they have defeated Cincinnati, Illinois twice,and UCLA, while Wisconson beat them twice by a combined 6 points. As we know firsthand from 2001 as well, Fresno actually could be looked at as a likely loss.

 

[somebody]

CU needs wins and to show recruits the program is coming back. I don't mind the OSU game, CU needs the $$$ but in the future, wins not bragging about playing a tough OOC schedule and losing those games will be better in the long run.

Obviously, there's a balance to be had for OOC scheduling. Money, wins, exposure, and that damn BCS formula are all considerations.

 

[BlackNGold]

Talking about what I want to see and expectations. I do not expect this team to win 10 games but I do not know how many I do expect. Here is what I want to see, a team that plays with determination and does not take plays off. I want to see at least two road victories. CU over the last 5 years dropped off significantly away from Folsom. That speaks directly to leadership on the field. CU could not beat anyone on the road. People talk about beating TT on the road in 2007 but that was a direct result of Wheatley and Dizon refusing to let the team be beat.

After the 2000 season the team only won 3 games and I was more optimistic than I had been in a long time. I want to feel that way at the end of the season - optimistic about the future.

 

[sackman]

This couldn't be more wrong. Fresno is an absolute terror when it comes to playing BCS opponents. In the last 3 years they have defeated Cincinnati, Illinois twice,and UCLA, while Wisconson beat them twice by a combined 6 points. As we know firsthand from 2001 as well, Fresno actually could be looked at as a likely loss.

I know their history. Regardless, they should be a team CU should beat.

 

[Dark Bohner]

I know their history. Regardless, they should be a team CU should beat.

Based on what? I'm not trying be an ass, but I really can't see any valid reason that CU SHOULD beat Fresno State these days. We should have beat them at home in 2001. We are a far cry from where we were then. Just the names on the side of our helmet don't mean we deserve to beat them.

 

[sackman]

Based on what? I'm not trying be an ass, but I really can't see any valid reason that CU SHOULD beat Fresno State these days. We should have beat them at home in 2001. We are a far cry from where we were then. Just the names on the side of our helmet don't mean we deserve to beat them.

We should beat them for the same reason we should have beaten Montana State, Toledo, etc. It doesn't mean we will, but we have a lot of advantages those schools can only dream of. We should beat them. Handily.

 

[White_Rabbit]

We sure don't know what to expect from this team. Some people are somewhat convinced we're going to take down Ohio State in their house this year. Others are convinced Fresno State is going to be a tough win. :lol:

 

[Mick Ronson]

i'm just glad we'll be spared a Pat Hill/Dan Hawkins mismatch. i shudder to think of how we handle a gambling, physical D and attack special teams based on seasons past.

 

[Buffnik]

We sure don't know what to expect from this team. Some people are somewhat convinced we're going to take down Ohio State in their house this year. Others are convinced Fresno State is going to be a tough win. :lol:

I'm willing to bet you $1000 and give you 10:1 odds that CU does not beat Fresno State in the 2011 regular season.