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!

The media I wish Colorado had

As Skiddy pointed out, there are a lot of Collages here. Right now DU is getting lots of press these days and Denver is one of 12 cities that has all 5 professional sports teams. Back in the days before the Rockies, Av's, and the ABA Noguts, the Buffs still played second fiddle to the Broncos but received more and better media coverage than they do now. Denver was a two newspaper town back then without the negative likes of Homo Henderson & Jizla.
 
I don't see how having a lot of creative art pieces created by sticking many different materials such as photographs and pieces of paper or fabric onto a backing has anything to do with the amount of media coverage we get.
 
Hugegroove said:
As Skiddy pointed out, there are a lot of Collages here. Right now DU is getting lots of press these days and Denver is one of 12 cities that has all 5 professional sports teams. Back in the days before the Rockies, Av's, and the ABA Noguts, the Buffs still played second fiddle to the Broncos but received more and better media coverage than they do now. Denver was a two newspaper town back then without the negative likes of Homo Henderson & Jizla.
Click to expand...

Back before the AVS and Rockies, CU was actually good at football.
 
This

Duff Man said:
He won four games and signed a class in February that ranked at or near the very bottom of the conference... and plenty of people seem to think he is doing a good to great job. No pressure at all right now.
Click to expand...

He also used one of those spots for his son. He hired on the son of the headhunter that presented him to the university.

I am still on board with the new coach, but if on the day he was hired he said at the press conference "Next year we will have the 11th ranked class in the Pac 12, I will hire on the son of the man who presented me to the university to his first BCS job in a critical position on my staff and I will bring my own son onto the program with one of our coveted scholarships!!" it wouldn't have gone well.

His on field performance to date has kept me on the band wagon. He has won the games he was supposed to. That is unfortunately several steps up from the prior two staffs.

I believe they should open practice to the media and there should be open conversation on sites like this. Would it create more interest? Maybe a little.
 
Duff Man said:
He won four games and signed a class in February that ranked at or near the very bottom of the conference... and plenty of people seem to think he is doing a good to great job. No pressure at all right now.
Click to expand...

lawdogg said:
You obviously understand the difference between fans looking for signs of life in a struggling program and actually being pleased with lackluster results, so I won't belabor that point. However, I sense Big Mac's boss is not going to be very understanding if those kinds of results continue, so I'd think there is some pressure there even without local sports radio shows harping on his recruiting classes and winning percentage post year one.
Click to expand...

To me its all about the money and the intent. Some say were broke from coaching buyouts, from a change of conference that cost us millions, from a stadium expansion that missed revenue goals. And then there is the gun shy and interfering admin, stung by a national media scandal, seemingly unwilling to hire a big gun. Wether they are real or rumor is hard to say but they all are true enough to have influenced the situation.

Either way we're on the down slope of all of those problems now.

The institutional questions going forward (for CU, not the fans) are these;
  • Is winning or contending for a National Championship a goal?
  • Is winning or contending for a Conference Championship a goal?
  • Is making a bowl game on a year over year basis a goal?
  • Have the above been articulated frequently or sited as a reason to make a change?

I dont believe they are in fact the currently stated goals. Certainly they not publicly stated often enough except when GB was here and RTD was the mantra. Hence, the pattern we have seen with our hiring practices.

Ive always ranked our hires post McCartney in this order keeping the bullets above in mind;

1. Barnett was the big name, serious football hire (Gary Kubiak was approached). (Now retired)
Delivered on recruiting, delivered on development, delivered on execution.

2. Neuheisel looked like a very smart hire based on talent (No national search). (Went on to Udub, UCLA, NFL)
Delivered on recruiting, missed on development and execution.

3tie. With Hawkins we plucked an up and comer (National Search, no big names). (Went on to TV and the CFL(fired))
Semi-successful recruiter, missed on development, abysmal execution.

3tie.. With MacIntyre we plucked an up and comer (National Search, no big names).
TBD on recruiting and development, good execution.

5. With Embree, well no one with any sense really thought that was a good hire (National Search no big names). (NFL Position Coach)
Missed on recruiting, development, and execution.​

I think you can see the pattern and it speaks for itself...

To Duff's point he wants instant results and I can't disagree with that. But were in a deep deep hole and were not administratively committed to success and thus we can't attract a coach that can move the needle with recruiting. Were just muddling along. Duff is spot on on that.
 
Last edited:
MiamiBuffs said:
To me its all about the money and the intent. Some say were broke from coaching buyouts, from a change of conference that cost us millions, from a stadium expansion that missed revenue goals. And then there is the gun shy and interfering admin, stung by a national media scandal, seemingly unwilling to hire a big gun. Wether they are real or rumor is hard to say but they all are true enough to have influenced the situation.

Either way we're on the down slope of all of those problems now.

The institutional questions going forward (for CU, not the fans) are these;
  • Is winning or contending for a National Championship a goal?
  • Is winning or contending for a Conference Championship a goal?
  • Is making a bowl game on a year over year basis a goal?
  • Have the above been articulated frequently or sited as a reason to make a change?

I dont believe they are in fact the currently stated goals. Certainly they not publicly stated often enough except when GB was here and RTD was the mantra. Hence, the pattern we have seen with our hiring practices.

Ive always ranked our hires post McCartney in this order keeping the bullets above in mind;
1. Barnett was the big name, serious football hire (Gary Kubiak was approached). (Now retired)
Delivered on recruiting, delivered on development, delivered on execution.

2. Neuheisel looked like a very smart hire based on talent (No national search). (Went on to Udub, UCLA, NFL)
Delivered on recruiting, missed on development and execution.

3tie. With Hawkins we plucked an up and comer (National Search, no big names). (Went on to TV and the CFL(fired))
Semi-successful recruiter, missed on development, abysmal execution.

3tie.. With MacIntyre we plucked an up and comer (National Search, no big names).
TBD on recruiting and development, good execution.

5. With Embree, well no one with any sense really thought that was a good hire (National Search no big names). (NFL Position Coach)
Missed on recruiting, development, and execution.​

I think you can see the pattern and it speaks for itself...

To Duff's point he wants instant results and I can't disagree with that. But were in a deep deep hole and were not administratively committed to success and thus we can't attract a coach that can move the needle with recruiting. Were just muddling along. Duff is spot on on that.
Click to expand...

Interesting look at our hires.

If you look at the hires based on how they might be looked at nationally.

1. Barnett - Came from a Major conference program that he had taken from the depths to the Rose Bowl. A guy who potentially could have ended up hired by almost any program in the country with an opening that he may have been interested in.

2. Hawkins - We all know it didn't work our but he was "the" hot coaching prospect at the time. Was credited with winning at a very high rate at Boise. If we hadn't hired him some other major conference program would have.

3. Neuheisel - Had no head coaching experience but was nationally known and would have been hired by a major program had he pursued it.

*No Score* Embree - A guy who had never been a coordinator much less a head coach. Can't think of any other BCS level program or even FCS level that would have hired him as a HC at the time.

As a national candidate I would put MacIntyre above Neu and behind Hawkins. He had been a HC and had turned around a mid-major from a laughing stock to a top 25 ranking. Hawkins sits above him because he was higher profile based on multiple years of winning and bowl games.

For our situation, and knowing what we know now I would put M2 ahead of Hawk based on the fact that he had led a program turn around. Hawk had a better record over a longer time but he also inherited a program that was already winning and had an established talent pipeline. That train was already on the tracks.

What impresses me with M2 so far is that he clearly has implemented a cultural change in Boulder. After a number of years where this hasn't been the case we now look like a major college program in the way we work. The big question now is can he bring in the talent needed to actually compete. He is recruiting better than we were but the jury is still out on if it is good enough.
 
pcbuff said:
He also used one of those spots for his son. He hired on the son of the headhunter that presented him to the university.

I am still on board with the new coach, but if on the day he was hired he said at the press conference "Next year we will have the 11th ranked class in the Pac 12, I will hire on the son of the man who presented me to the university to his first BCS job in a critical position on my staff and I will bring my own son onto the program with one of our coveted scholarships!!" it wouldn't have gone well.

His on field performance to date has kept me on the band wagon. He has won the games he was supposed to. That is unfortunately several steps up from the prior two staffs.

I believe they should open practice to the media and there should be open conversation on sites like this. Would it create more interest? Maybe a little.
Click to expand...

Was Neinas involved in the search that led to us hiring McIntyre? He had just stepped down as interim Big 12 commish a couple months before we hired HCMM. Didn't think we used him this time but could be wrong.
 
I don't want/expect instant results. Just surprised at how many fans think MacIntyre is doing a good job thus far.
 
SINKRATZ said:
Was Neinas involved in the search that led to us hiring McIntyre? He had just stepped down as interim Big 12 commish a couple months before we hired HCMM. Didn't think we used him this time but could be wrong.
Click to expand...
You're correct. CU had basically no relationship with Chuck for a few years before Embree. We owed him nothing.
 
BuffNut99 said:
Other than the recruiting rankings, how could one say that he isn't doing a good job?
Click to expand...

He won one PAC-12 game and did not win a single road game. 4-8 is clearly better than 1-11, but not sure it says anything about whether he will be successful long term.
 
Duff Man said:
He won one PAC-12 game and did not win a single road game. 4-8 is clearly better than 1-11, but not sure it says anything about whether he will be successful long term.
Click to expand...

But I'm also not sure it's cause for a significant amount of "pressure" to be placed on him publicly at this point.
 
Duff Man said:
Fair point.
Click to expand...

As is yours. I think right now we're just in a "wait and see" holding period with Mac. One season and one full recruiting class coming out of the dumpster fire we've been can be argued positively or negatively. As this next class unfolds and depending on what happens next season things will probably get a lot clearer one way or the other.
 
Agree

Junction said:
As is yours. I think right now we're just in a "wait and see" holding period with Mac. One season and one full recruiting class coming out of the dumpster fire we've been can be argued positively or negatively. As this next class unfolds and depending on what happens next season things will probably get a lot clearer one way or the other.
Click to expand...

The Jury is out. I do wish these sorts of debate were taking place on the radio and we had an inquisitive media giving daily updates and debate. But I also understand the program is at a point in time where it is an after thought or fond memory to a lot of Colorado.
 
The whole media argument is backwards. The media reporting only reflects what people are interested in reading and hearing about. In the 60s CU was as big as the Broncos for local interest. That interest has become diluted over time for a lot of reasons - mainly that people that move into the area do not connect (adopt) to CU. Only about 20% of the season ticket holders have attended CU meaning that you have to have people adopt CU within the Metro Area.

If a majority of the people were interested in talking about CU then the media would be talking about it. I have been complaining for years that CU is losing its core fans - slowly at first but now rapidly. I do not have quantitative numbers but just from observation it appears this site has slowed down significantly. The worst thing that can happen is apathy and I think that has set in among a large segment of the CU fan base. At the end of the Hawkins era (his 4th year) fans were upset, giving him an extra year was a slap in the face to fans. Since that time I believe the passion is flowing out of a lot of the fan base.

The too many colleges thing is funny. Other places have a lot of colleges. If CU was really the State's flagship University then people that attended Mesa and Western State, etc., would have no problem adopting CU as the Div 1 Football program.

I don't have the answer but first CU just has to win back the fan base they have lost over the last several years.
 
BlackNGold said:
The whole media argument is backwards. The media reporting only reflects what people are interested in reading and hearing about. In the 60s CU was as big as the Broncos for local interest. That interest has become diluted over time for a lot of reasons - mainly that people that move into the area do not connect (adopt) to CU. Only about 20% of the season ticket holders have attended CU meaning that you have to have people adopt CU within the Metro Area.

If a majority of the people were interested in talking about CU then the media would be talking about it. I have been complaining for years that CU is losing its core fans - slowly at first but now rapidly. I do not have quantitative numbers but just from observation it appears this site has slowed down significantly. The worst thing that can happen is apathy and I think that has set in among a large segment of the CU fan base. At the end of the Hawkins era (his 4th year) fans were upset, giving him an extra year was a slap in the face to fans. Since that time I believe the passion is flowing out of a lot of the fan base.

The too many colleges thing is funny. Other places have a lot of colleges. If CU was really the State's flagship University then people that attended Mesa and Western State, etc., would have no problem adopting CU as the Div 1 Football program.

I don't have the answer but first CU just has to win back the fan base they have lost over the last several years.
Click to expand...

Bolded will solve almost all of this.

Fans in Colorado have lots of options. Provide a quality product and people will pay attention.
 
Junction said:
As is yours. I think right now we're just in a "wait and see" holding period with Mac. One season and one full recruiting class coming out of the dumpster fire we've been can be argued positively or negatively. As this next class unfolds and depending on what happens next season things will probably get a lot clearer one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
MtnBuff said:
Bolded will solve almost all of this.

Fans in Colorado have lots of options. Provide a quality product and people will pay attention.
Click to expand...

Yes there has to be a quality product but this goes much deeper. The AVs are winning and nobody cares...the Rockies suck and draw 3 million fans. The whole winning will fix everything ignores some other basic issues. There has to passion in the community for the program that can transcend rough spots. IMO, CU is falling below critical mass in that department. It will be interesting to see how season ticket sales go this year ( I fear not good). Do you realize in 2000 CU had a not very good year on the field but season ticket sales went up for the 2001 season - that was the result of passion, hope, and interest in the program. Most of that is missing.
 
BlackNGold said:
Yes there has to be a quality product but this goes much deeper. The AVs are winning and nobody cares...the Rockies suck and draw 3 million fans. The whole winning will fix everything ignores some other basic issues. There has to passion in the community for the program that can transcend rough spots. IMO, CU is falling below critical mass in that department. It will be interesting to see how season ticket sales go this year ( I fear not good). Do you realize in 2000 CU had a not very good year on the field but season ticket sales went up for the 2001 season - that was the result of passion, hope, and interest in the program. Most of that is missing.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the passion has to be restored. The fans have to come back to a point where they feel like the Buffs are "our" team and care if they win or lose. CU has an alumni base in Colorado, has families that want their kids to go there, has an identity within the state but losing and administrative missteps have allowed all that to go to the back burner.

College football is still the second most followed sport in the US (far behind the NFL but ahead of the other pro sports) if you look at TV ratings and revenues, stadium attendance, etc. The potential is there but the administration has to have a plan to foster this and make the plan happen.

Even with all that at this point nothing is going to change if CU doesn't put a quality product on the field. Winning is not going to solve everything but without winning nothing will change the trend you have accurately identified.
 
MtnBuff said:
I agree with you that the passion has to be restored. The fans have to come back to a point where they feel like the Buffs are "our" team and care if they win or lose. CU has an alumni base in Colorado, has families that want their kids to go there, has an identity within the state but losing and administrative missteps have allowed all that to go to the back burner.

College football is still the second most followed sport in the US (far behind the NFL but ahead of the other pro sports) if you look at TV ratings and revenues, stadium attendance, etc. The potential is there but the administration has to have a plan to foster this and make the plan happen.

Even with all that at this point nothing is going to change if CU doesn't put a quality product on the field. Winning is not going to solve everything but without winning nothing will change the trend you have accurately identified.
Click to expand...

To add to your observations, I think every year there are certain number of people who don't renew, or go to fewer games, simply due to life changes. New job, kids, whatever. I don't think this has changed much. However, these people need to be back filled with new people that are either transplants to the area (like Hokie) or new grads. The students haven't had a good game experience, so aren't coming back after graduation and transplants aren't interested in watching CU lose. I had a friend (recent transplant to CO) who came to the Embree years with me and said he didn't want to renew his season tickets for precisely that reason.
 
BlackNGold said:
The too many colleges thing is funny. Other places have a lot of colleges. If CU was really the State's flagship University then people that attended Mesa and Western State, etc., would have no problem adopting CU as the Div 1 Football program.
Click to expand...

# Universities excl community colleges
* Big college sports city

37 New York City
17 Chicago
16 Boston
12 Washington, DC
10 Baltimore
10 Los Angeles * (no NFL)
10 Philadelphia
9 Atlanta
8 Denver
8 Nashville
8 Pittsburgh
8 St. Louis
8 St. Paul
7 Houston
7 Milwaukee
7 New Orleans
7 Portland, Oregon
6 Claremont
6 Cleveland
6 Greensboro, South Carolina
6 Honolulu
6 Jackson
6 Jacksonville
6 Memphis
6 San Diego
6 Worcester Massachusetts
5 Buffalo
5 Cincinnati
5 Colorado Springs
5 Columbus*
5 Indianapolis
5 Minneapolis
5 Montgomery, Alabama
5 Raleigh North Carolina*
5 Rochester, New York
5 San Antonio
4 Dallas
4 Albany New York
4 Ft. Wayne
4 Grand Rapids
4 Kansas City
4 Louisville
4 Mobile Alabama
4 Providence Rhode Island
4 Salt Lake City *
4 San Juan Puerto Rico
4 Santa Barbara
4 Seattle
4 Sioux Falls
4 Tampa
4 Tucson, Arizona *
3 Albuquerque
3 Fort Worth
3 Greenville
3 Irvine
3 Lincoln *
3 Little Rock
3 Manchester New Hampshire
3 Marietta Georgia
3 Miami
3 New Haven
3 New London
3 Newark
3 Oakland
3 Omaha
3 Richmond *
3 Riverside, California
3 San Francisco
3 Santa Fe
3 savanna Georgia
3 Spartanburg
3 Syracuse New York *
3 Tacoma
3 Tallahassee *
3 Tulsa, Oklahoma *
3 Wichita
3 Winston-Salem
3 Charlotte, North Carolina
2 Austin*
2. Baton Rouge*
2 Oklahoma City
2. Tuscaloosa *
1. State College PA *
 
Hugegroove said:
As Skiddy pointed out, there are a lot of Collages here. Right now DU is getting lots of press these days and Denver is one of 12 cities that has all 5 professional sports teams. Back in the days before the Rockies, Av's, and the ABA Noguts, the Buffs still played second fiddle to the Broncos but received more and better media coverage than they do now. Denver was a two newspaper town back then without the negative likes of Homo Henderson & Jizla.
Click to expand...
Never really thought about it that way, I look at it as the Big 4, which Denver does have -- I don't look as MLS as a major North American sports league. Now, you could include the WNBA and ask how many cities have all 6? -- NY, DC, Chicago come to mind.
 
cubuffs85 said:
Never really thought about it that way, I look at it as the Big 4, which Denver does have -- I don't look as MLS as a major North American sports league. Now, you could include the WNBA and ask how many cities have all 6? -- NY, DC, Chicago come to mind.
Click to expand...

The rapids have pretty good fan support though as well as some other MLS cities. The WNBA doesn't have any fan support and is supplemented by the NBA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top