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!

What are your expectations of CU football & a coach that matches?

turftoe

New Member
I want a team that is Top-25 every year, vies for PAC-12 South every year into the last 2 games of the season, wins the PAC12 championship every 5 years, and catches lightning-in-a-bottle every 10 years for a NC.

This may come across as setting bar low but I'm not sure I really want to expect NC every year as the standard for future of Buff football. I think it's realistic and yet challenging given some of the challenges at CU. What are those challenges? High academic standards, don't accept juco transfer credits, don't have a phys ed department, minorities typically don't feel comfortable in Boulder/CU campus...head coach has predecessor's
desk, needs to by water for asst. coaches, needs to pull in chairs from different rooms to have enough for linemen in positional mtgs., etc. I think some of these "institutional, poor-leadership" examples can be addressed. But, if THE only way to success is to sell-out to the formula of letting any athlete with a pulse (and criminal record) into the school, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on facilities (50% of which is non-substance "bells/whistles" type stuff, see U of Oregon), create a whole new academic department just so students can handle classes, ie, Phys Ed,...I'm not sure it's worth all that just so that CU can be serious player for NC every year. And, is that formula a guaranteed path to a NC?

Once you determine your expectations & standards for success at CU, does that impact who you hire as HC?
 
Ok. Leave dream world out. Based on who we are our history and todays college landscape here goes. Win 3-4 next year. 6-7 the following. Build it the right way and build a consistent 8 game winner each year. Every few years win 10 and be fighting for a competitive spot at top of pac 12. Be competitive in your losses. That would be a success given our level of alumni, state and ex player financial support. It would also mean you win 80 percent of your home games and rarely get blown out. It would be great to be where 80 of the 110 fbs schools wish they were. I would be very happy with that
 
Agree. So does that "OK-without-vieing-for NC-every-year" change or dictate how you go about the HC search? I feel that too many of us see shooting for the top as the only standard therefore impacts our evaluation of how HC search process is going.
 
Find me the next bielema and make us the next wisconsin or northwestern and ill be pimped. I also think we will. Just wait
 
I tend to agree. Give me a steady dose of Alamo, Sun, Holiday Bowls. Add a Rose Bowl every so often and a shot at NC every 10 yrs and I'd be psyched knowing we weren't selling out to the dominant paradigm for every-year-NC-contention- those come at too high a cost. Find the next up & coming quality coach that can achieve that. Bohn's using paid consultants, can't they identify list of 8-12 guys that are true quality yet to be given a chance candidates?
 
I want a team that finishes in the top 100 in terms of offensive ppg and defensive ppg allowed every year
 
NashBuff said:
Just compete then just win baby.
Click to expand...
you called?

al-davis.jpg
 
Last edited:
To be competitive and not in a position where my co-workers feel sorry for me for being a Buffs fan. It is quite brutal living in Nebraska and being a Buff when our team is so abysmal.
 
turftoe said:
I want a team that is Top-25 every year, vies for PAC-12 South every year into the last 2 games of the season, wins the PAC12 championship every 5 years, and catches lightning-in-a-bottle every 10 years for a NC.

This may come across as setting bar low but I'm not sure I really want to expect NC every year as the standard for future of Buff football. I think it's realistic and yet challenging given some of the challenges at CU. What are those challenges? High academic standards, don't accept juco transfer credits, don't have a phys ed department, minorities typically don't feel comfortable in Boulder/CU campus...head coach has predecessor's
desk, needs to by water for asst. coaches, needs to pull in chairs from different rooms to have enough for linemen in positional mtgs., etc. I think some of these "institutional, poor-leadership" examples can be addressed. But, if THE only way to success is to sell-out to the formula of letting any athlete with a pulse (and criminal record) into the school, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on facilities (50% of which is non-substance "bells/whistles" type stuff, see U of Oregon), create a whole new academic department just so students can handle classes, ie, Phys Ed,...I'm not sure it's worth all that just so that CU can be serious player for NC every year. And, is that formula a guaranteed path to a NC?

Once you determine your expectations & standards for success at CU, does that impact who you hire as HC?
Click to expand...
A National Championship every 10 years - what planet are you living on . We got one in 123 years of Colorado football. You are out to lunch brother - how about some winning seasons. We haven't had one in seven years.
 
Make bowl games and compete in division every year. Win the division every few years. Win the conference once (or more) a decade.

We're in a division with USC, they'll have their occasional down seasons (like this one) but most years they will be winning the division. UCLA and to a lesser extent Arizona State will also have their years of being quite good. Basically, we could have some years where we're a 10 win team but don't win the division.
 
Compete for the PAC 12 title yearly. Doesn't mean we have to win it but be in the top 3 yearly.
 
I don't think winning a MNC every 10 years is a realistic goal or expectation. Being in the conversation for a MNC once a decade probably is. I would have to dig a little bit, but I am nearly certain that our history shows us being ranked in the top 5 at least once every decade since WWII, and if you're ranked in the top 5, you are legitimately in the MNC picture.

We should regularly be competing for the Pac-12 south. It should come down to USC and us, pretty much every year, with one of the other schools sneaking in there every once in a while. USC will probably finish ahead of us more often than not, but they should know that we're gonna fight them for it, and that we're gonna win enough to really annoy them. Basically a repeat of us and kNU, except this time we'll be playing a school where most of the alumni can spell and their average fans don't find sheep attractive.

If we are regularly competing for the P12 South, that means wins, mid to upper tier bowls, and occasional shots at Rose Bowl and other BCS berths. But, we're about 4 years away from that. Before Embo was fired, I would have said we were 5-6 years away, so the timeline is accelerating a lit bit now.
 
It comes down to your time horizon, IMO. Ideally, I'd like for CU to be in a position to win the conference every year. That does not mean they win the conference, or make the CCG, just be in a position to be there. This year, the teams that would fall into that category were UW, OSU, UO, Stanford, USC, UCLA, ASU and UA. All of them had a chance to play for the conference title. That's 8 out of 12 teams. I don't think it's asking too much to be in that group.

However, I don't think it's realistic to have that expectation in 2013. Probably not in 2014, either. We've fallen that far. For the next two years, I would expect to see improvement. Progress. Tangible evidence that things are getting better. Maybe that means fewer blowouts. Maybe that means 3-4 wins instead of 1. Maybe it means improved class recruiting rankings. It probably means all of those things.
 
sackman said:
It comes down to your time horizon, IMO. Ideally, I'd like for CU to be in a position to win the conference every year. That does not mean they win the conference, or make the CCG, just be in a position to be there. This year, the teams that would fall into that category were UW, OSU, UO, Stanford, USC, UCLA, ASU and UA. All of them had a chance to play for the conference title. That's 8 out of 12 teams. I don't think it's asking too much to be in that group.

However, I don't think it's realistic to have that expectation in 2013. Probably not in 2014, either. We've fallen that far. For the next two years, I would expect to see improvement. Progress. Tangible evidence that things are getting better. Maybe that means fewer blowouts. Maybe that means 3-4 wins instead of 1. Maybe it means improved class recruiting rankings. It probably means all of those things.
Click to expand...

1. Turn recruiting around, 2 years

2a. Win 5 games per within 2 years, 3 at the most
2b. Team is competitive and beats most mid major and all FCS teams

3a. Win enough games to be bowl eligible, 3-4 years
3b. Team is now competitive against unranked BCS teams

4. Team now finishes above .500 on an annual basis barring fluke seasons

5a. Win or contend for CCG, 4-6 years.
5b. Team is now competitive against some ranked BCS teams

Anything after that is gravy.
 
Wait. Going 5-7 in year three would be good and a bowl game by the fourth year would also be good? For what we are going to pay we better get better results than that
 
I think Miami's expectations are pretty reasonable. There's a big difference between what one expects will happen and what one hopes will happen.

We are in a deep hole, and it's going to take a lot of work to get out.
 
fwbuff said:
I think Miami's expectations are pretty reasonable. There's a big difference between what one expects will happen and what one hopes will happen.

We are in a deep hole, and it's going to take a lot of work to get out.
Click to expand...
I expect when we are paying big money that the coach not need three years to get to 5-7 for that kind of money. It's not exactly a huge job to go 3-0 in the OOC and win two games at home during conference play.
 
Have to agree with Tini here, if a new coach is only going 5-7 (let's even call it 6-7 since we have 13 games 3 years from now) in his third year that's not all that impressive given a non-conference slate of Hawaii, UMass, CSU, and Grambling State.
 
Creatini said:
Wait. Going 5-7 in year three would be good and a bowl game by the fourth year would also be good? For what we are going to pay we better get better results than that
Click to expand...

Were probably starting over from a recruiting stand point. This isn't a Blake or Neuheisel team loaded with mis applied talent. So basically, I would no expectations for 2013 and would look to 2014 and beyond for improvement.

I stopped drinking the Kool aid around DH year 4. I cut my losses and now only come in here during a coaching change hoping I can get excited again.
 
Creatini said:
I expect when we are paying big money that the coach not need three years to get to 5-7 for that kind of money. It's not exactly a huge job to go 3-0 in the OOC and win two games at home during conference play.
Click to expand...

I think your bar is higher than mine. A coach can not will a lack of talent to just win every week. Good luck with that.

You need two solid recruiting classes to build a foundation. I thank there is talent on this team but not enough yet to win regularly. We still have deficits from Dan Hawkins best class which was, what, five years ago?
 
Last edited:
MiamiBuffs said:
I think your bar is higher than mine. A coach can not will a lack of talent to just win every week. Good luck with that.

You need two solid recruiting classes to build a foundation. I thank there is talent on this team but not enough yet to win regularly. We still have deficits from Dan Hawkins best class which was, what, five years ago?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that we shouldn't expect to best CSU, a FCS team, and one more team at home every year and win two conference games? Even Jon Embree managed to win two conference games in his first season. No we do not have much talent but we have enough to go 2-7 in conference play. Utah isn't much more talented than we are yet they go toe to toe with most PAC 12 teams...and they went 5-7. If we are paying big money I expect good coaching which will win games.
 
Creatini said:
So you're saying that we shouldn't expect to best CSU, a FCS team, and one more team at home every year and win two conference games? Even Jon Embree managed to win two conference games in his first season. No we do not have much talent but we have enough to go 2-7 in conference play. Utah isn't much more talented than we are yet they go toe to toe with most PAC 12 teams...and they went 5-7. If we are paying big money I expect good coaching which will win games.
Click to expand...

Two things about CSU;

1. They have what could be a big time future coach standing on his stepping stone job. I don't know how good his current class is but I'd keep an eye on it. Or, he could fall down.

2. Embree squeezed out 3 wins with a team with 20+ seniors. The next coach will have underclassman to develop and probably a poor recruiting class.

It will not be impossible or unheard of for a coach to win 5 right away. But I've learned in my 23 years with CU, especially lately, to temper my optimism.

I grew up four blocks from Univ. of Miami in the late 80s, I used to go to their practices and had season tickets to their home games. Then I went to CU 90-94. In that period I was lucky to see two teams at their zenith just man handle just about everyone they played. I haven't seen that level in awhile. I'm still recovering from the hangover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top