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!

You all need to relax.

'Tini said:
I look forward to your continued uninformed posts and slamming of anyone who uses math to support their opinions
Click to expand...

Quotes math as a predictor


Picks CU to go undefeated at home in bball last year... then one home loss and 4 overall losses this year. Fail. What's the statistical probability if that happening Mr math boy?
 
sliderNcider said:
Quotes math as a predictor


Picks CU to go undefeated at home in bball last year... then one home loss and 4 overall losses this year. Fail. What's the statistical probability if that happening Mr math boy?
Click to expand...
It's cute how you're trying to pretend that losing Dinwiddie didn't play a massive part of those home losses. Up until then I was batting 100%, sorry I didn't account for our best player to tear his ACL half way through the year. Good try though.
 
'Tini said:
It's cute how you're trying to pretend that losing Dinwiddie didn't play a massive part of those home losses. Up until then I was batting 100%, sorry I didn't account for our best player to tear his ACL half way through the year. Good try though.
Click to expand...

Thanks for not answering the question. Lets talk this year, just for arguments sake. Again, Mr Math boy, what is the statistical probability of CU going undefeated out-of-conference, only 1 home loss, and only 4 overall losses? TIA.

Or I can save you the time and guess the % chance is miniscule. For someone that touts mathematical models, you certainly have a knack for picking some of the least likely probabilities... and then shoving that opinion down everybody's throat
 
t8GaqMh.gif


Your hate quest against me is absolutely hilarious. Keep going because it's pretty damn funny.
 
'Tini said:
I just really do not give a **** right now. I could...but I won't.
Click to expand...

Because it would be a gigantic egg on your face. Again, for someone that continually touts mathematical models, you apparently don't even use them (correctly at least). It doesn't make you a genius, it makes you one big hypocrite.
 
No, because it's a lot of work for 30 games. So like I said, I do not give a ****. Maybe take the advice of the board and quit douching up the board with your lame ass crusade.
 
Idot Buff said:
You should head to Wall St and become an investment banker. Your superior analytical skills will make you a fortune. Then, you can come back and bankroll the return to dominance of the CU football program. Alla ****ing louya.
Click to expand...
And follow in the footsteps of the mighty pabuff!
 
Colorado Track Fan said:
Absolutely. I think CU would be better off over a seven year period to keep the system stable vs. restart again and all of the backwards steps that go along with making a coaching change. I also think the coach will learn and get better with experience at the same school running the same system and building relationships with Colorado high school coaches. There are only a very few coaches who have shown the ability to step in and kick ass anywhere they go. HCMM has a track record of being competent enough to stick it out and see what happens.
Click to expand...
****. I had you on ignore, but had started reading your posts again (they are not really hidden on tapatalk) and i find myself agreeing more and more with you. Have we both found a middle ground?

I wouldn't be cool with 6 years of 2-10, but I think 4 or 5 years should show stability and a solid team. I remains to see if Mac the Duece can lead us to 10 to 14 win seasons or not, but I think bowl games are coming with him, and many if he stays. If he can't take us to title contention or settles in with 8 win seasons and mediocre recruiting, then we move to someone else.

I do think my faith needs a shot in the arm with a bit of coaching shakeup this season. Even ignoring the money Toby makes compared to what the ST product is, we need an ace recruiter. Find him, pay him. STAT!
 
FlatironsBuff said:
****. I had you on ignore, but had started reading your posts again (they are not really hidden on tapatalk) and i find myself agreeing more and more with you. Have we both found a middle ground?

I wouldn't be cool with 6 years of 2-10, but I think 4 or 5 years should show stability and a solid team. I remains to see if Mac the Duece can lead us to 10 to 14 win seasons or not, but I think bowl games are coming with him, and many if he stays. If he can't take us to title contention or settles in with 8 win seasons and mediocre recruiting, then we move to someone else.

I do think my faith needs a shot in the arm with a bit of coaching shakeup this season. Even ignoring the money Toby makes compared to what the ST product is, we need an ace recruiter. Find him, pay him. STAT!
Click to expand...


Agreed. I would tend to look at more data than just the win-loss record. I'm not a reductionist. I don't think that you need to be an expert or an insider to generally tell if a coach is completely clueless and making a mess of things (e.g. Embree and Hawlkins to a lesser extent). If you have that situation then I think it's better to cut your losses ASAP. The longer you hold on the deeper the hole you dig. However, I think it is entirely possible to have a solid coach who knows what he's doing and have ebbs and flows in win-loss success, and I think this especially applies to all schools who are not at the upper echelon of resources thrown at football. There are so many variables that go into winning and losing. And the other team, obviously, has a vote in the matter. I think stability and strength in a program is the result, typically, of a long and steady effort. Recruiting is key and unless you're at a superpower, it takes time to develop relationships and reputation with high school coaches and the football community in general. Blowing the whole thing up every three or four years just sets you back to square one IMO.

In CU's particular situation I think fully committing to the current coach gives you a better chance of long term success than replacing him in in two or three years time if CU is still among the bottom three or four in the conference. I think people tend to undervalue the benefits of stability and overstate the benefits of "new blood" and "change". I'm saying be careful in writing off a coach as a dud. Based on what I've seen I don't think the current coach is a dud or a fraud (like the Hawlk). I think he is solid enough based on what I've seen so far. If the coach can build a base of stability, which takes years, then I think that puts CU in a position to hang around the middle of the conference most years with a few shots at the top when things fall into place (talented seniors at QB and o-line) and maybe an occasional season or two near the bottom when you lose key guys. I think that's a realistic goal for CU unless CU is willing to do the things that the upper echelon programs do to be in contention for conference championships most every year (Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, Oregon recently, USC traditionally, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Colorado Track Fan said:
Agreed. I would tend to look at more data than just the win-loss record. I'm not a reductionist. I don't think that you need to be an expert or an insider to generally tell if a coach is completely clueless and making a mess of things (e.g. Embree and Hawlkins to a lesser extent). If you have that situation then I think it's better to cut your losses ASAP. The longer you hold on the deeper the hole you dig. However, I think it is entirely possible to have a solid coach who knows what he's doing and have ebbs and flows in win-loss success, and I think this especially applies to all schools who are not at the upper echelon of resources thrown at football. There are so many variables that go into winning and losing. And the other team, obviously, as a vote in the matter. I think stability and strength in a program is the result, typically, of a long and steady effort. Recruiting is key and unless you're at a superpower, it takes time to develop relationships and reputation with high school coaches and the football community in general. Blowing the whole thing up every three or four years just sets you back to square one IMO.

In CU's particular situation, I think fully committing to the current coach gives you a better chance of long term success than replacing him in in two or three years time if CU is still among the bottom three or four in the conference. I think people tend to undervalue the benefits of stability and overstate the benefits of "new blood" and "change". I'm saying be careful in writing off a coach is a dud. Based on what I've seen I don't think the current coach is a dud or a fraud (like the Hawlk). I think he is solid enough based on what I've seen so far. If the coach can build a base of stability, which takes years, then I think that puts CU in a position to hang around the middle of the conference most years with a few shots at the top when things fall into place (talented seniors at QB and o-line) and maybe an occasional season or two near the bottom when you lose key guys. I think that's a realistic goal for CU unless CU is willing to do the things that the upper echelon programs do to be in contention for conference championships most every year (Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, Oregon recently, USC traditionally, etc.).
Click to expand...
Well-written post. I think we have a good coach, and given 4-5 years, can turn us into a bowl team every year. Stability in rebuilding is important, if programs like Duke are illustrative. Granted, they don't have the same expectations as a program like CU, but they stuck with their guy through many average/below average seasons, and now are winning 10 games a year. They are in the ACC, which helps them, but stability is so important IMO.
 
'Tini said:
First of all I don't use any math in my bets on here, I pretty much go all in regardless.
Click to expand...

Is that what happened to your rep? All in?

Idot Buff said:
You should head to Wall St and become an investment banker. Your superior analytical skills will make you a fortune. Then, you can come back and bankroll the return to dominance of the CU football program. Alla ****ing louya.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he will not get far going all in. On Wall St you have to learn how to hedge and spread.
 
'Tini said:
Yup. All in on CU +4. Forgot about that bet...

And_its_gone_original.jpg


But please don't try to lecture me on not knowing diversification with bets.
Click to expand...

Of the two of us I think Im the one thats much less likely to lecture.

Here's a little rep. Hope it helps
 
Colorado Track Fan said:
Agreed. I would tend to look at more data than just the win-loss record. I'm not a reductionist. I don't think that you need to be an expert or an insider to generally tell if a coach is completely clueless and making a mess of things (e.g. Embree and Hawlkins to a lesser extent). If you have that situation then I think it's better to cut your losses ASAP. The longer you hold on the deeper the hole you dig. However, I think it is entirely possible to have a solid coach who knows what he's doing and have ebbs and flows in win-loss success, and I think this especially applies to all schools who are not at the upper echelon of resources thrown at football. There are so many variables that go into winning and losing. And the other team, obviously, has a vote in the matter. I think stability and strength in a program is the result, typically, of a long and steady effort. Recruiting is key and unless you're at a superpower, it takes time to develop relationships and reputation with high school coaches and the football community in general. Blowing the whole thing up every three or four years just sets you back to square one IMO.

In CU's particular situation I think fully committing to the current coach gives you a better chance of long term success than replacing him in in two or three years time if CU is still among the bottom three or four in the conference. I think people tend to undervalue the benefits of stability and overstate the benefits of "new blood" and "change". I'm saying be careful in writing off a coach as a dud. Based on what I've seen I don't think the current coach is a dud or a fraud (like the Hawlk). I think he is solid enough based on what I've seen so far. If the coach can build a base of stability, which takes years, then I think that puts CU in a position to hang around the middle of the conference most years with a few shots at the top when things fall into place (talented seniors at QB and o-line) and maybe an occasional season or two near the bottom when you lose key guys. I think that's a realistic goal for CU unless CU is willing to do the things that the upper echelon programs do to be in contention for conference championships most every year (Ohio State, Alabama, Oklahoma, Oregon recently, USC traditionally, etc.).
Click to expand...
agree. I also see where expectations and staff changes are also necessary to keep up with the changes within college football and the kids that are being recruited.
 
agree with colorado track fan... mac 2 knows what he is doing...even a blind man can see program improvements year over year and compared to two seasons ago it isnt even close! something short of chip kelly saying he wants to live and coach in boulder... i say stay the course!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top