gone native
Club Member
Quarterback Sneak on First Down
Well, this thread is literally talking about the program being dead, so it feels like this board in general is viewing the only two options as "the program is dead and we should get rid of football" or "we need to be competing with Oregon and USC for recruits and NIL"I appreciate the response, but you and @The Alabaster Yak are acting like the only two options are fighting for bowl eligibility each year or playing Bama in the NC.
What I’m talking about is Iowa or Utah level success. 8-4 average record with a halfway decent bowl game. Some seasons you’ll scrape by with 6 wins, others you’ll surprise and get 10.
If that moderate level of success isn’t even in the realm of possibility at CU, then what are we even doing giving a ****?
That level of success is not possible unless one of two things happen:I appreciate the response, but you and @The Alabaster Yak are acting like the only two options are fighting for bowl eligibility each year or playing Bama in the NC.
What I’m talking about is Iowa or Utah level success. 8-4 average record with a halfway decent bowl game. Some seasons you’ll scrape by with 6 wins, others you’ll surprise and get 10.
If that moderate level of success isn’t even in the realm of possibility at CU, then what are we even doing giving a ****?
Rock bottom could happen 9/9/2023. Losing to Scott Frost in a lightly attended game with more penalties than points. That would be rock bottom to me.
I think I understand your point, but to focus on those players from the MM years that could not have started at other programs doesn't really add to the overall supposition, does it? For the mediocre players we had in 2016 who would not have started at other programs, how much did we gain from them being here (which we would not have gotten from some other mediocre player)? Almost our entire defensive backfield were NFL players who could have surely started for other teams in their final years. (Even Laguda got some looks in the NFL.) Without those guys, would we have had the one big year we had? How about P. Lindsey? Issiah Oliver was a Soph. then, what if he had transferred to play somewhere else? How about Tupo, Carrall, or Kapavala? If we lose any of those guys (even if we got two of them-I think-by way of transfer), our line would have been a sieve. We were incredibly lucky they all stayed reasonably healthy. We didnt' have any depth (again) under MM, at all. Sefo was not a world-beater, but he was a fifth-year senior who had started for multiple years (and even made a practice squad in the NFL). To me, the 2016 year arose from the good players who committed to the program and were here for five years, not the mediocre players who had nowhere else to go. Now those players will be few and far between.Eh, not many from that 2016 defense (or offense) we’re going to be starting elsewhere going into that season, so I don’t buy that guys who were recruited by MacIntyre would just be leaving for better programs a couple years in.
Remember that all of these recruits that are leaving were MM or Tucker recruits who were either being passed over, or don’t care to stick around this inept coaching staff.
Regardless, my point is more about the fact that this administration has approved lower admissions over the past 5-10 years relative to before, has approved much larger coaching contracts and gotten on board with the multi year contracts once it went into law, and weren’t the issue with MacIntyre not being able to beat Oregon State at home to start 6-0 in 2018, or Mel Tucker losing to AFA and Arizona at home.
This program can be a 6+ win program with the current support, but the AD has to make a competent hire for Head Coach.
My point was that the 2016 season and the success many of the defensive players had that year is what made them NFL prospects. You are trying to make the point that guys like Chido, Tedric Thompson, Spoon, Laguda, etc were all NFL caliber players before that season and therefore would have transferred to pursue NIL deals in today's environment. I just don't think that's the case.I think I understand your point, but to focus on those players from the MM years that could not have started at other programs doesn't really add to the overall supposition, does it? For the mediocre players we had in 2016 who would not have started at other programs, how much did we gain from them being here (which we would not have gotten from some other mediocre player)? Almost our entire defensive backfield were NFL players who could have surely started for other teams in their final years. (Even Laguda got some looks in the NFL.) Without those guys, would we have had the one big year we had? How about P. Lindsey? Issiah Oliver was a Soph. then, what if he had transferred to play somewhere else? How about Tupo, Carrall, or Kapavala? If we lose any of those guys (even if we got two of them-I think-by way of transfer), our line would have been a sieve. We were incredibly lucky they all stayed reasonably healthy. We didnt' have any depth (again) under MM, at all. Sefo was not a world-beater, but he was a fifth-year senior who had started for multiple years (and even made a practice squad in the NFL). To me, the 2016 year arose from the good players who committed to the program and were here for five years, not the mediocre players who had nowhere else to go. Now those players will be few and far between.
Ultimately, if the argument is that our mediocre players stayed because they couldn't play someplace else, isn't that exactly the same problem we are dealing with now? How is that MM era an example of something positive that could happen again? The only difference I see is that we presently don't have veteran guys who will even get a sniff of the NFL if they stay 5+ years, and as you say, they are mostly MM and Tucker recruits.
It could fail since there's such a lack of fan & booster support for other CU sports that it makes football well-supported by comparison.Ignoring everything but this paragraph, I have a genuine question for you - what makes you think other programs would do better? CU basketball is at its peak right now - and let's be brutally honest that unless lightning strikes twice, we're dropping down again as soon as Tad steps down. Women's hoops has a strong history, and I could see them making some noise again but that won't drive the money that is needed for the program to grow. Cross Country and Skiing are awesome, but who here has ever watched a cross country meet?
I've been very vocal that Tad should get whatever he wants, and no one should ever question it. But the best way for that to happen is a football program that doesn't suck. The schools that are making it work in the Big East are all either small private schools or UConn which has a history that when you combine men & women's teams is pretty hard to match. I don't know HOW we fix football (although getting rid of anyone who was once part of the Buff4Life group or ever coached/played at CU is a damn good start), but getting rid of it won't help any of the other sports either.
Now if you want to discuss shifting priorities to where football gets enough to tread water and putting more money and resources into hoops, that's a legit discussion. But even that would be tricky for us to make up so much ground.
Chuck Fairbanks was lower than Embree by a few years.Hawkins was an unethical grifter but the rock bottom was the Embree regime. Could be headed there again.
Even a half assed attempt at a school with CU's facilities should get you to .500 more often than not.Locksley’s Maryland is 6-6 and in a bowl. I remember the collective laughter when he was hired. We forget what an incredibly low threshold 6-6 is.
And, just a reminder, they play in a division with 4 teams that were/are ranked in the top 10 this year, including a playoff team.Locksley’s Maryland is 6-6 and in a bowl. I remember the collective laughter when he was hired. We forget what an incredibly low threshold 6-6 is.
Chuck Fairbanks was lower than Embree by a few years.
We need some body bag games to get to .500. I don't see any of those in our upcoming OOC schedule. RG's eyes got bigger than his stomach when he was scheduling.Even a half assed attempt at a school with CU's facilities should get you to .500 more often than not.
DMV has good talent. Maryland usually brings in classes ranked in the middle of the B1G. If anything they consistently underperform their talent level.And, just a reminder, they play in a division with 4 teams that were/are ranked in the top 10 this year, including a playoff team.
I agree. Optimal OOC schedules for CU would have one FCS, one mediocre G5, and one P5 in the mediocre/bad range. Something along the lines of Delaware, Bowling Green, & Kansas.We need some body bag games to get to .500. I don't see any of those in our upcoming OOC schedule. RG's eyes got bigger than his stomach when he was scheduling.
We have some OOC body bag games on our schedule. The problem is that we are one getting body bagged.We need some body bag games to get to .500. I don't see any of those in our upcoming OOC schedule. RG's eyes got bigger than his stomach when he was scheduling.
1. Beamer stopped recruiting, was overly loyal to some assistants and essentially coasted into retirement his last ~5 yearsOh hell, it was a joke, sure he's fine. Wtf has happened to Va Tech's defense? They are always usually good.
You would know better than me about them.1. Beamer stopped recruiting, was overly loyal to some assistants and essentially coasted into retirement his last ~5 years
2. Justin Fuente didn't recruit
3. Bud Foster followed Beamer's plan of coasting into retirement
But I wouldn't draw that conclusion from a meaningless bowl game. The performance in conference games over the last decade is far more significant.
This is not unlike many large institutions in our society today.In my opinion, there is a tremendous amount of institutional malaise at CU that shows up not just in athletics but also in the academic side of the house.
Key leaders throughout the organization have been in place for a very long time. They have been out of fresh ideas for a while now, and everything within the organization has back-slid.
Expected retirements from several of these key figures within the next couple of years should improve things.
In my opinion, there is a tremendous amount of institutional malaise at CU that shows up not just in athletics but also in the academic side of the house.
Key leaders throughout the organization have been in place for a very long time. They have been out of fresh ideas for a while now, and everything within the organization has back-slid.
Expected retirements from several of these key figures within the next couple of years should improve things.
This sounds like a great addition to the Boomer thread. ****in boomersThis is not unlike many large institutions in our society today.