What's new
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!

CU Vision

What is the vision for CU football?

I’m stating the obvious, but I think sustained football success is primarily a function of these three factors presented in order of importance:

1. Win at all costs attitude (admin & broad fan base)
2. Resources
3. Proximity to recruiting (Statistically, most of the best players play close to home, in-state or in-region.)

Every program will ebb and flow over time; that’s inevitable. Even the historical powerhouse programs go through dry spells, but many, if not most, eventually claw their way back to the top ranks because of the three factors presented above. Alabama is a perfect example. Nobody has a crystal ball when it comes to selecting coaches. Most of the historical powerhouse programs strike out more than once, but what separates them from the rest is their willingness to fire high priced coaches and then find another high priced coach. Also, these programs are willing and able to spend big bucks on coordinators, staff, facilities, etc. It’s a culture. You put a losing product on the field at a powerhouse program and there is tremendous and consistent pressure coming from all directions to turn things around; it’s not just a few hard core football fans in internet boards.

On a relative basis, CU does not score very well on any of the Three Factors, particularly #1, although #2 is much improved with the new Pac12 TV money. That said, I’m not sure CU would even want a win at all costs attitude. I’m not sure it’s healthy or desirable.

So what is the vision? What is the model? What are the expectations? What does “success” look like at CU?

Personally, I think success at CU looks like a middle of the pack Pac-12 team, with occasional runs at the conference championship when the pieces fall into place (CU’s 2001 B12 Conference Championship is a good example). What you don’t want to be, obviously, is the perennial cellar dweller, which is where CU is now.

To be honest, I think Barnett was a good coach for CU. I think he fit the model--middle of the pack results with occasionally bursts. Very few schools can maintain The Pipeline—replacing graduating senior superstars with up and coming superstars. Without that, you’re going to have to endure a lot of .500 seasons if you’re playing in one of the big conferences. The competition is fierce.

On a side note, the real test for Embree & staff is the aggregate performance against: CSU, Sac State, Fresno, Washington State, and Utah. To me, that’s apples to apples. You lose all of those games and something is wrong with the coaching. You can’t blame it on talent or experience.

I’d be curious to see what others here see as the model for CU. What other schools are doing what CU would like to do, and could do? Wisconsin comes to mind for me. Washington seems to be on the right track. They had 7 wins last year and a bowl appearance. I think they got the right guy in Sarkisian.
 
Excellent post.

One thing that is the wildcard for CU is that it's a great campus in a fantastic location. Because of that, it has always been a place that can attract recruits from California, Texas and other places. When the program is winning, it consistently draws Top 25 recruiting classes. And that's been with a facilities disadvantage.

If we get the facilities and show a winning product, the potential is a regularly ranked program that is in the mix for a conference championship every year. Especially with the new revenue streams.

One huge advantage CU has that relates to on-field performance is that unlike places like UCLA the players can't go home on weekends or have the distractions of hanging out with their old crew from home. Because of this, our football team is able to build a close-knit family atmosphere that you don't see many other places.

I don't believe that CU can ever be expected to be like USC, Ohio State, Florida State, Alabama or Oklahoma over the long haul but there's no reason the program can't be one of the Top 20 in the nation.
 
Excellent post.

One thing that is the wildcard for CU is that it's a great campus in a fantastic location. Because of that, it has always been a place that can attract recruits from California, Texas and other places. When the program is winning, it consistently draws Top 25 recruiting classes. And that's been with a facilities disadvantage.

If we get the facilities and show a winning product, the potential is a regularly ranked program that is in the mix for a conference championship every year. Especially with the new revenue streams.

One huge advantage CU has that relates to on-field performance is that unlike places like UCLA the players can't go home on weekends or have the distractions of hanging out with their old crew from home. Because of this, our football team is able to build a close-knit family atmosphere that you don't see many other places.

I don't believe that CU can ever be expected to be like USC, Ohio State, Florida State, Alabama or Oklahoma over the long haul but there's no reason the program can't be one of the Top 20 in the nation.[/QUOTE]

Agreed- Why can't CU be like VA Tech, WVA, WI ... heck, even Oregon ?
 
Because Benson and DiStepheno are ignorant to the gains excellence in athletics can bring a school. They really need to read that study on athletics and schools someone posted last night.
 
Well said. Rep on the way.

I have always believed CU had the resources to be a perennial top 25 team. To me that means being in the upper tier of it's conference, and a bowl game should be the norm. I realize there may be some 5-7 years along the way, but as a rule CU ought to be turning in 8-9 W's a year, and occasionally having a run like was had in 90-91, 94-96, 01-02, where CU is a player in the national spotlight. It can be done, it has been done before by three different coaches, Mac, the Buff daddy, Tricky Ricky, riding Mac's talented roster, and GB who put together a nice run as well. You can even look back at coaches before my time, Crowder, Mallory etc. who had a good deal of success.

But, as the OP points out, everyone must be rowing in the same direction. BB, Dr. Phil and Mike "Costco" Bohn simply aren't committed to that goal.
 
Excellent post.

One thing that is the wildcard for CU is that it's a great campus in a fantastic location. Because of that, it has always been a place that can attract recruits from California, Texas and other places. When the program is winning, it consistently draws Top 25 recruiting classes. And that's been with a facilities disadvantage.

If we get the facilities and show a winning product, the potential is a regularly ranked program that is in the mix for a conference championship every year. Especially with the new revenue streams.

One huge advantage CU has that relates to on-field performance is that unlike places like UCLA the players can't go home on weekends or have the distractions of hanging out with their old crew from home. Because of this, our football team is able to build a close-knit family atmosphere that you don't see many other places.

I don't believe that CU can ever be expected to be like USC, Ohio State, Florida State, Alabama or Oklahoma over the long haul but there's no reason the program can't be one of the Top 20 in the nation.

Agreed- Why can't CU be like VA Tech, WVA, WI ... heck, even Oregon ?

Not too long ago, I'm sure some of those schools were saying that about CU.
 
Thanks for the reply.

I don’t see how anyone would not want to go to school in Boulder after you take in the view coming into town on 36 on a particularly nice day. What a beautiful scene! What other school could match that?


That said, I do not believe there are many “football player types” who care, or place any value on this when evaluating their many options. I don’t think that’s a selling point for very many highly regarded urban football players. It certainly is for me, but I don’t think it is for them. I think CU got Cali and TX recruits back in the day because CU was kicking ***** in football. That's just my opinion.
 
Thanks for the reply.

I don’t see how anyone would not want to go to school in Boulder after you take in the view coming into town on 36 on a particularly nice day. What a beautiful scene! What other school could match that?


That said, I do not believe there are many “football player types” who care, or place any value on this when evaluating their many options. I don’t think that’s a selling point for very many highly regarded urban football players. It certainly is for me, but I don’t think it is for them. I think CU got Cali and TX recruits back in the day because CU was kicking ***** in football. That's just my opinion.

There was a lot of charisma on those staffs too, from what i've heard.
 
Well said. Rep on the way.

I have always believed CU had the resources to be a perennial top 25 team. To me that means being in the upper tier of it's conference, and a bowl game should be the norm. I realize there may be some 5-7 years along the way, but as a rule CU ought to be turning in 8-9 W's a year, and occasionally having a run like was had in 90-91, 94-96, 01-02, where CU is a player in the national spotlight. It can be done, it has been done before by three different coaches, Mac, the Buff daddy, Tricky Ricky, riding Mac's talented roster, and GB who put together a nice run as well. You can even look back at coaches before my time, Crowder, Mallory etc. who had a good deal of success.

But, as the OP points out, everyone must be rowing in the same direction. BB, Dr. Phil and Mike "Costco" Bohn simply aren't committed to that goal.
I think it's less Bohn and more the other two. All three are at fault though.
 
I think it's less Bohn and more the other two. All three are at fault though.
It has been my opinion since the fatal keeping of HaLk for the fifth year that MB is simply a yes man. Maybe that's unfair, but that is what he looks like to me.
 
It has been my opinion since the fatal keeping of HaLk for the fifth year that MB is simply a yes man. Maybe that's unfair, but that is what he looks like to me.
From what I understand, Bohn wanted Halk gone after the 2009 but was overruled. Not sure how much more he could have done but he seems to be pretty limited by Benson and DiStepheno.
 
It is amazing how the landscape works - after reading the above post. Why is Texas not in the top 5 every year?? Recruits, big expectations, easy conference (now). Then look at nu always winning terrible place to live, no recruiting grounds anywhere close to stinkin??? It is a combination of chemistry, coaching, talent and support from the school.
 
It is amazing how the landscape works - after reading the above post. Why is Texas not in the top 5 every year?? Recruits, big expectations, easy conference (now). Then look at nu always winning terrible place to live, no recruiting grounds anywhere close to stinkin??? It is a combination of chemistry, coaching, talent and support from the school.
Not this again
 
It is amazing how the landscape works - after reading the above post. Why is Texas not in the top 5 every year?? Recruits, big expectations, easy conference (now). Then look at nu always winning terrible place to live, no recruiting grounds anywhere close to stinkin??? It is a combination of chemistry, coaching, talent and support from the school.

There does seem to be a pattern. I think the basic fundamentals hold true over time. There is ebb and flow, of course, but over time the results are there.


Texas Recent Results
YearRankingBCS Bowl
200012
20015
20026
200312
20045Rose Bowl Win
20051National Championship
200613
200710
20084Fiesta Bowl Win
20092National Championship Game



Nebraska Results
YearRanking
20008
20018
200319
200524
200914
201020
201124
 
Here is the rankign of the schools with the best winnning % over the past 11 years. I took out the non-BCS schools like Boise State. As you can see, the schools at the top are who you would expect to see at the top based on 1. win at all costs mentality, 2. resources and 3. proximity to recruits.
RankTeam nameWinning %WonLost
2Oklahoma0.8040511929
3Texas0.8028211428
4Southern Cal0.7952810126
5Louisiana State0.793111530
7Ohio State0.7751910029
8Virginia Tech0.748311037
9Georgia0.7361110638
10Florida0.7342710538
12Oregon0.7214310139
13Auburn0.7163110140
14West Virginia0.705049841
15Wisconsin0.692319944
16Miami-Florida0.681169444
17tIowa0.661879247
19Boston College0.652489249
20Michigan0.652179048
 
So given that data, Texas has an average ranking of 7 and NU has a average ranking of 16.7. Texas averages 7.27 wins/year. NU 7.07 wins/year. Texas averages 0.26 conference titles/year. NU 0.38 conference titles/year. Texas averages a national title every 29.5 years. NU 24.2

Hate both of these programs but I don't understand the Texas does less with more and NU does more with less argument all the time
 
Crazy thing - That is truly why I love college football over all sports...You never know
 
So given that data, Texas has an average ranking of 7 and NU has a average ranking of 16.7. Texas averages 7.27 wins/year. NU 7.07 wins/year. Texas averages 0.26 conference titles/year. NU 0.38 conference titles/year. Texas averages a national title every 29.5 years. NU 24.2

Hate both of these programs but I don't understand the Texas does less with more and NU does more with less argument all the time

Didn't you just answer that? Texas and nebraska have very similar states except for the average ranking. Texas always gets the top recruits and funds their AD like no other school yet nebraska is right up there with them.
 
There are philosophical remnants, if not flat out objectives, still stemming from the previous (Bitsy) CU Admin's overreaction to the "scandal." After the scandal and subsequent house-cleaning, the new or surviving Admins went into reactionary and job control mode to avoid having an out-of-control football program, which the vocal Boulderites and local media would have had you believe was the case. After the scandal, the priority list became something like: 1) avoid future scandal; 2) become/stay profitable annually; 3) do not piss off faculty, Boulder PD, Boulder DA, Boulder citizens; 4) be competitive on the field. So, the current state of the program is aligned with this plan. Until the Admin purges this mentality, we will continue to be mediocre.
 
Didn't you just answer that? Texas and nebraska have very similar states except for the average ranking. Texas always gets the top recruits and funds their AD like no other school yet nebraska is right up there with them.
That's a good point, maybe I should just say that Texas, despite what some people think, do win and do it a lot. They're right up there with the bluebloods.
 
So given that data, Texas has an average ranking of 7 and NU has a average ranking of 16.7. Texas averages 7.27 wins/year. NU 7.07 wins/year. Texas averages 0.26 conference titles/year. NU 0.38 conference titles/year. Texas averages a national title every 29.5 years. NU 24.2

Hate both of these programs but I don't understand the Texas does less with more and NU does more with less argument all the time

Look, in the last 11 years Texas is ranked #3 in winning percentage over the course of nearly 150 games. That’s a pretty good sample size. Nebraska is ranked #20. That’s a pretty big difference. Furthermore, Texas is 9-1 in head to head competition in the last 10 games.

However, NU is coming out of a down cycle, which is exactly what I said happened to historical powerhouses. The same thing has happened at various times with Texas, Bama, USC, Michigan, Florida, etc.

Back to my main point, success over time is a result of commitment, money, and proximity to recruits. Nebraska has two of those three is spades, which is why they are a historical powerhouse. NU is not an exception to the formula; they prove the formula. NU spends the bucks. They fired Stolich (sp?) for crying out loud. That guy’s record would be solid gold at most schools. They’ll keep firing people and spending until they get it right. You know they will.

By contrast, UCLA has amazing proximity to recruits, but they absolutely do not have the win at all costs mentality--and their winnign percentage is a reflection of that attitude fromt the admin and fans/alumni.
 
Because Benson and DiStepheno are ignorant to the gains excellence in athletics can bring a school. They really need to read that study on athletics and schools someone posted last night.

Benson is running a multi-billion dollar enterprise that hires thousands and serves tens of thousands. Getting caught up in a $40-$60M piece of the business that employs several dozen employees and several hundred student athletes is below him. Benson wants to create Colorado jobs through the Med Center investment, he wants to land hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research grants and hold on to what is left of State higher education funding. Athletics is a self-sufficient operation that is a 'nice to have'. It's not a Must Have.

DiStephano got saddled with the AD after the 200 scandal and his charge is to provide "institutional oversight". His mission is to keep student athletes from embarrassing the school from the perspective of NCAA compliance and staying out of legal problems. That program GPA shows DiStephano has a bias towards the student half of the student-athlete. The Boulder campus is run by an academic first policy.

Mike Bohn has to deliver to his boss responsible financial stewardship and compliance. Winning conference championships are not a manditory criteria in Mike's evaluation, or he'd be gone by now. Mike emphasizes community relations and marketing. Athletic operations are 100 percent delegated to his coaches. It's not Mike's place own up for Hawkins or Embree. He gives the coached all the rope they need to hang themselves.

It would be great if the next President is passionate about football winning titles and brings the Athletic Director under him as a direct report.
 
All-time record

RankTeamWinLossTieGamesPct.PFPADelta
1Michigan8953123812450.734307991414916650
2Texas8583333412250.714295081578713721
3Nebraska8563494112460.703307191609814621
4Notre Dame (IN)8533014111950.731301261500015126
5Ohio St.8253165311940.713280641447113593
6Oklahoma8193105311820.715319511506316888
7Alabama8143204311770.71281041341314691
8Tennessee7943475411950.687266311536811263
9Southern California7793135411460.703276751479312882
10Georgia7484005412020.64525214165918623
11Louisiana St.7343904711710.64724980153689612
12Auburn (AL)7184054711700.63424084161797905
13Penn St.7163614311200.658280961536912727
14West Virginia7014574512030.60124741183766365
15Syracuse (NY)6914924912320.58125072186446428
16Virginia Tech6904344611700.60923619163037316
17Georgia Tech6894614311930.59624607175327075
18Texas A&M6824504811800.59824746168247922
19Arkansas6794564011750.59524077174546623
20Pittsburgh (PA)6784934112120.57623503189744529
21Colorado6764523611640.59624403192045199
 
Back
Top