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!

The Embree Decision: Let's get some good discussion going

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
There are arguments in favor of retaining Embree another year.

1. The Coaches Association downgrades a job if the school has terminated before 3 years on the job.
2. Embree inherited a difficult situation and 2 years is not enough time to fix it (talent, culture, facilities that lag behind peers, difficulty for a quick fix when CU can't get many JUCOs through admissions, etc.).
3. Administrative fear of racial politics since Coach Mac opened that can of worms when Embree was hired and there could be blowback of firing him after 2 years when Hawkins was given 5 years.
4. Financial considerations. It costs money to fire coaches and hire new ones. The CU AD has been in financial difficulty for a while and it's tough to fight the easy sound byte from opposition that says tuition rates are out of control but the university can come up with $2+ million to change coaches.
5. Studies that show that firing a coach quickly more often results in a cycle of hirings/firings without improvement than it does in a new level of success achieved by the new coach.

But as you saw in my email, things are historically bad. Much of the above goes out the window when it reaches this level.

On #1, it's not like CU has a bad track record. It's likely that CU is looked at as a better job by finally showing a commitment to winning.

On #2, all true but the facts say he has made matters worse.

On #3, it's already an awful situation with the % of black head coaches in football. If we send the message to universities that hiring a black coach means they can't evaluate him based on job performance but have to hang on longer than is appropriate due to the color of his skin, that will only make the situation worse.

On #4, 38k people showed up last week. Season tickets were down this year. 35 suites are up for renewal next year. The financial cost of keeping Embree dwarfs the actual termination fees. Cal understood this and fired Tedford today.

On #5, I agree on face value. But there are certainly cases where termination for poor performance is justified. We can't say that no coach should ever be fired for losing and poor recruiting. So we have to acknowledge that there are times you have to go against the statistical probabilities. Embree's performance is historically bad. Probably unprecedented. If that doesn't justify it, what does? But it's also important that CU does the right things to improve administrative support, financial support and facilities in order to do the other things necessary to avoid a long-term cycle of being awful.

********************

Anything else on the "Pro" side that I may have missed?

Possibly, as what was brought up on Mile High Sports tonight, that the backlash from former players in the local media would be huge and that them along with other Buffs4Life guys would permanently drop their support for CU football.

Is that really a risk?
 
Getting top notch coach and staff along with facilities boost ASAP is only way back...with finally accepting PE credits a bonus if the folks at the top really want to commit to having a great program. With it will come increased donations and applications, etc.
 
The only risk is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

If there is ANY sign of progress, keep proceeding.

When there is regression of epic proportions, cut ties and move on...
 
The Dan Hawkins saga should be a lesson learned.

Another episode in the same manner will bury CU for a very long time.

Also, someone MUST get the facilities plan MOVING.
 
If the engineering school was ranked last in the nation after 5 years of steady decline, don't you think heads would roll there and they would try to fix it?
 
I am not against firing Embree, but I just don't trust the geniuses up the chain of command to find a replacement.

You can't put the cart in front of the horse.

I'd rather see an immediate change at the top, then have a fresh new chancellor and president figure out the AD and HC situation.
 
I am not against firing Embree, but I just don't trust the geniuses up the chain of command to find a replacement.

You can't put the cart in front of the horse.

I'd rather see an immediate change at the top, then have a fresh new chancellor and president figure out the AD and HC situation.

I can understand the thinking. But that's not at all likely to happen. I don't think letting the Embree situation fester waiting for Benson and Phil to magically disappear is going to get us anywhere....
 
CU will be back if the administration can do this three things.

1. Hire a high profile coach that can have a major impact on recruiting and can coach
2. Build new facilities for the football team
3. Physical Education is offered as a major
 
I can understand the thinking. But that's not at all likely to happen. I don't think letting the Embree situation fester waiting for Benson and Phil to magically disappear is going to get us anywhere....

It also is not likely that our 74 year old president and sixty-something year old chancellor and lapdog AD will open the coffers and preside over a true home run hire.

How much gas is left in the tank for Benson and DiStephano? They won't be around much longer anyway.

The Embree situation is their mess. They hired an unproven and underqualified coach. They are responsible for our woes. They have been poor stewards of CU'S football tradition. They botched it.

Letting them replace Embree will only allow them to continue to serve us the same old recipe.
 
I think the eye test would show just how poor of a job this is, so being worried about a downgrade by the coaches association should be a mute point

I am a firm believer that a coach should get a minimum of three years unless they show the complete ineptitude this staff has shown.

My main concern with hiring a new coach is that Bohn has hit gold in basketball, but is kind of inept picking a winning football coach....but Embree should be fired IMO
 
My main concern with hiring a new coach is that Bohn has hit gold in basketball, but is kind of inept picking a winning football coach....but Embree should be fired IMO

I continue to think Bohn is not the problem. Many of us have accepted that hiring Hawkins was seen as a no-brainer at the time. Hawk was one of the hottest coaching prospects in the nation. How was anyone to know really that Peterson was the brains behind that organization?

Embree & Co. were FAR from no-brainers, but reading b/w the lines from what we have heard the past few years is that Bohn's hand was forced on the Embree hire (in part as a back lash to hiring Hawk who had no ties to CU and burned down all the tradition along the way).

I honestly feel that IF the administration gave Bohn enough of the decision-making authority on this (and of course sufficient budget) he would pick a good one.
 
Does the Coaches Association downgrade carry any weight? I mean, it seems like a "big whoop" kind of thing.
 
Does the Coaches Association downgrade carry any weight? I mean, it seems like a "big whoop" kind of thing.

I think it would be more of a concern if CU had hired a coach like Hawkins, or a hot name coordinator, and fired him after two years.

But Embree was a no-name coach who nobody except Colorado wanted for more than a tight end's coach.
 
I continue to think Bohn is not the problem. Many of us have accepted that hiring Hawkins was seen as a no-brainer at the time. Hawk was one of the hottest coaching prospects in the nation. How was anyone to know really that Peterson was the brains behind that organization?

Embree & Co. were FAR from no-brainers, but reading b/w the lines from what we have heard the past few years is that Bohn's hand was forced on the Embree hire (in part as a back lash to hiring Hawk who had no ties to CU and burned down all the tradition along the way).

I honestly feel that IF the administration gave Bohn enough of the decision-making authority on this (and of course sufficient budget) he would pick a good one.



Hawkins was being courted by Notre Dame. We hired a good consultant too. It seemed like a great hire at the time and there were some decent recruiting classes in their as well. It just didn't work out.

Embree, otoh, had trouble written all over it. But because he was who he was few of us complained (lack of experience) and hoped it'd all be ok. Nothing could be further from the truth. The guy is the anti-Mac, wrong in every sense of the word, and unlike Mac, it appears he can't recruit either. The team gets worse and worse on weekly basis I think he's his own worse enemy to be honest.

I think there are forces here, beyond Bohn, that are the problem. I suspect some of those forces (boosters) will be greatly diminished coming up this time. Hell, maybe they'll even give Bohn total latitude this time. Ease the admissions too. If I were him I'd be beating Benson and DiStefano over the head with these results and about interference to set myself up for the next hire. The AD is a politicians job after all
 
I am not against firing Embree, but I just don't trust the geniuses up the chain of command to find a replacement.

You can't put the cart in front of the horse.

I'd rather see an immediate change at the top, then have a fresh new chancellor and president figure out the AD and HC situation.
This is EXACTLY where I am, but I know that this is asking too much...

If keeping Embo one more year means that Mike Bohn gets canned, then I guess it's a compromise I can live with. Agree BB and DiStephnie have to go, but I will take the firing of Bohn in the meantime. He's a pathetic AD with a horrible track record of hiring coaches in every single sport at every school he's ever worked at.
 
This is EXACTLY where I am, but I know that this is asking too much...

If keeping Embo one more year means that Mike Bohn gets canned, then I guess it's a compromise I can live with. Agree BB and DiStephnie have to go, but I will take the firing of Bohn in the meantime. He's a pathetic AD with a horrible track record of hiring coaches in every single sport at every school he's ever worked at.

Have you seen Tad Boyle?
 
This is EXACTLY where I am, but I know that this is asking too much...

If keeping Embo one more year means that Mike Bohn gets canned, then I guess it's a compromise I can live with. Agree BB and DiStephnie have to go, but I will take the firing of Bohn in the meantime. He's a pathetic AD with a horrible track record of hiring coaches in every single sport at every school he's ever worked at.


I could not disagree more. But you are free to your uninformed and completely biased opinion.
 
I know we're all aware that coach Mac went 1-10 in '84 and I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere but I haven't been following every thread.

Does someone (preferably someone old enough to have been watching back then) have a good argument as to why coach Mac and the '84 buffs were different than embree's 2012? It was his THIRD season! Surely he had proven that he couldn't win at CU.

I'm not saying this is an argument for Embree being a good coach, I'm just wondering if there's any way we can possibly tell with all that's gone wrong over the past 5 years. Didn't coach Mac and his staff make horrible mistakes and prove themselves amateurs during that '84 season?
 
I know we're all aware that coach Mac went 1-10 in '84 and I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere but I haven't been following every thread.

Does someone (preferably someone old enough to have been watching back then) have a good argument as to why coach Mac and the '84 buffs were different than embree's 2012? It was his THIRD season! Surely he had proven that he couldn't win at CU.

I'm not saying this is an argument for Embree being a good coach, I'm just wondering if there's any way we can possibly tell with all that's gone wrong over the past 5 years. Didn't coach Mac and his staff make horrible mistakes and prove themselves amateurs during that '84 season?
the games were close and their was steady improvement... this time around games arent close and the team isnt getting any better
 
It also is not likely that our 74 year old president and sixty-something year old chancellor and lapdog AD will open the coffers and preside over a true home run hire.

How much gas is left in the tank for Benson and DiStephano? They won't be around much longer anyway.

The Embree situation is their mess. They hired an unproven and underqualified coach. They are responsible for our woes. They have been poor stewards of CU'S football tradition. They botched it.

Letting them replace Embree will only allow them to continue to serve us the same old recipe.

Dammit, Blue was old. That's what old people do. They die
 
There is no argument "for keeping Embree". I cannot make one. I am resistive to change and I feel many coaches have not been given enough time in the past. I'm pretty patient this way. Even Mac struggled at first. But his struggles weren't anywhere like this.

I felt Wulf was making slow but steady progress at WSU. Could he have gotten them to top 25 at some point - probably not. But he was making progress.

But the case has been made that this is a mess, with no improvement shown thoughout the season. We are the worst team in FBS and not improving. This year's class is historically poor. We are recruiting at the level of WAC schools. Everyone else can see how bad this is but our admin's I guess.
 
I know we're all aware that coach Mac went 1-10 in '84 and I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere but I haven't been following every thread.

Does someone (preferably someone old enough to have been watching back then) have a good argument as to why coach Mac and the '84 buffs were different than embree's 2012? It was his THIRD season! Surely he had proven that he couldn't win at CU.

I'm not saying this is an argument for Embree being a good coach, I'm just wondering if there's any way we can possibly tell with all that's gone wrong over the past 5 years. Didn't coach Mac and his staff make horrible mistakes and prove themselves amateurs during that '84 season?

I think this is the thread you're looking for. And like I posted there last night, I think some summary of these differences is good to include in these e-mails. The "Mac won one game in 1984" argument is a favorite of the people who claim that all this staff needs is time....
 
There is no argument "for keeping Embree". I cannot make one. I am resistive to change and I feel many coaches have not been given enough time in the past. I'm pretty patient this way. Even Mac struggled at first. But his struggles weren't anywhere like this.

I felt Wulf was making slow but steady progress at WSU. Could he have gotten them to top 25 at some point - probably not. But he was making progress.

But the case has been made that this is a mess, with no improvement shown thoughout the season. We are the worst team in FBS and not improving. This year's class is historically poor. We are recruiting at the level of WAC schools. Everyone else can see how bad this is but our admin's I guess.

Interesting that you bring up Wulf. I posted on here that I was against firing him. I thought he was putting his system together and upgrading talent. They were still losing way too much, but I saw them getting better. And he had the track record of success at Eastern Washington, iirc. Leach made some sense since it was a similar system that wouldn't erode the work Wulf had done and the "big name" aspect gave recruiting a shot in the arm (4* QB this cycle and beat us for some WRs in their transitional class), but even with those considerations I thought Wulf deserved more time.

I hope people in authority at CU are reading this and understand that we're not just a bunch of reactionary fans who call "Off with their heads!" after any losing season. I'd say that 90% of this board went into the Embree era thinking he should be given 3 or 4 years. But the performance by every measure has just been shockingly bad.
 
Not that it is that it settles the debate by any stretch, but the general national reaction to firing Embree would be along the lines of "At least CU admitted their mistake quickly and are moving on." If we keep him, the firestorm of criticism is going to be much bigger.
 
I could not disagree more. But you are free to your uninformed and completely biased opinion.
Please show me some stats before you start saying sh!t like that. Last time I checked Mike Bohn's career record of hiring coaches @ Idaho and SDSU was .386 or something close. Look at his record with the Idaho football team alone. He hired Tom Cable to run the team after two losing seasons. He fired the last winning coach in school history and Cable had 11 wins in four seasons. Sounds a lot like Embree.

Please show me some stats BESIDES TAD BOYLE(even a broken clock is right twice a day) to support your claim that Bohn has a good track record of hiring coaches. He already on his second FB, BB coaches(mens and womens), but I will give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to fundraising.

Edit: his hires of the BBall teams were just as bad. Don't believe me take a look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_Vandals_men's_basketball
Bohn presided from 1998-2003. Notice how everytime a coach(doesn't matter what sport) is hired the coach regresses until Bohn leaves. I guess we're doomed to the same fate.
 
Last edited:
Public perception is what got us into this mess. We took the better known Hawk over Peterson because we needed a "homerun hire". Then we took a CU rich staff because we needed to restore our tradition. 0-2 on those lines of thinking.

If we focused on people who run professional programs, experienced play callers, coaches who know how to win, good recruiters, we can't go wrong. I think about where we'd be if we had hired Peterson. We were that close to having the Tad Boyle of football running things. Has to give us hope for the next hire.
 
Back
Top