The only people paying attention to this or who give a damned are message board vermin. Oh, and maybe, a little, some recruits. Other than that, no one cares. So, any talk of "damage" to the program is misplaced.
if pendergast was coming... he would have come alreadyStill no word on Pendergast?
He's not coming to CUStill no word on Pendergast?
Rumor is for some reason we lost interest in him. Perhaps he prefers the NFL or could not get in alignment with HCMM on what we want on the defense. It does sound like HCMM would like to be more hands on regarding schemes on D and that could scare away a more established a DC.He's not coming to CU
Rumor is for some reason we lost interest in him.
Where are you getting that "rumor"? The only thing he had been mentioned in was the original hot board but that's it. I don't think we ever showed interest.Rumor is for some reason we lost interest in him. Perhaps he prefers the NFL or could not get in alignment with HCMM on what we want on the defense. It does sound like HCMM would like to be more hands on regarding schemes on D and that could scare away a more established a DC.
But at this point I think none of us have a ****ing clue exactly what HCMM is thinking or where this is going to end up. I have backed off following the news on an hourly basis so I can actually get work done. Someone wake me up when we finally hire someone
The credibility of Adam's list of 4 has been debated ad nauseum in this thread so I won't rehash that argument. But if you accept that a.) it was credible and b.) was a vetted list of CU targets, than my statement that we must have cooled on him is not a reach. IF a and b are true, he was a top 4 candidate. 2 of the top 4 have reportedly rejected offers. Therefore, Pendergast was one of the only remaining options in our top 4 list.Where are you getting that "rumor"? The only thing he had been mentioned in was the original hot board but that's it. I don't think we ever showed interest.
The credibility of Adam's list of 4 has been debated ad nauseum in this thread so I won't rehash that argument. But if you accept that a.) it was credible and b.) was a vetted list of CU targets, than my statement that we must have cooled on him is not a reach. IF a and b are true, he was a top 4 candidate. 2 of the top 4 have reportedly rejected offers. Therefore, Pendergast was one of the only remaining options in our top 4 list.
We apparently have not offered him and rumors suggest that is because we cooled on him. Would love to know why. My guess is it is the same reason LSU "cooled" on him. He probably prefers the NFL and is interviewing for roles with the latest coaching changes.
Guess where? Rivals. But regardless of the source, the facts are that we almost for sure had him in our top 4, he has not been hired elsewhere, and 2 of our other top candidates rejected offers (also reportedly via Rivals). This leaves really only 2 options. 1) We cooled on him, or b.) he rejected us.What rumors? Link them.
Guess where? Rivals. But regardless of the source, the facts are that we almost for sure had him in our top 4, he has not been hired elsewhere, and 2 of our other top candidates rejected offers (also reportedly via Rivals). This leaves really only 2 options. 1) We cooled on him, or b.) he rejected us.
However, there doesn't appear to be any source that believes we made him an offer. Therefore the most likely scenario is that we did not make him an offer. That could be because he told HCMM and RG that no money we offered would get him to come to CU. But i don't know he would have said that because a solid offer would make him appear more in demand and could improve his negotiations elsewhere assuming he had no interest in CU. So, the rumors on Rivals are not inconsistent with the little info we have.
Ya we didn't want that scrub anyway.
Re: Wazzu... Yikes. Horrendous hire for them. If MM pulls that type of hire... time for a pink slip
Why. Don't lock yourself into "name" guys. Up and comer with the right experience would be fine
I actually agree with you in this instance given Leach's offensive background. You would think he would need a proven DC to basically run that side of the team.It doesn't have to be a "name" guy. They hired a Safeties coach as DC. That is bad
I actually agree with you in this instance given Leach's offensive background. You would think he would need a proven DC to basically run that side of the team.
However, promoting a position coach to DC would make a lot more sense for a guy like HCMM who wants his D run a certain way and has the experience/results at DC to prove it. It worked with Lindgren on the Offensive side of the ball as well. That said, not just any position coach will do. I'm just saying that you have to look deeper than that, is all.
solid point, but counteracted by HCMM's defensive pedigree I think. Either way, position coach = HCMM should be fired is an extreme position to take.Lindgren was a proven OC at 2 different schools (granted small schools). Not quite just a position coach
I'm predicting an announcement in the next week or so to the effect of, "Mike MacIntyre will be taking on the role of DC in addition to his head coaching duties. He felt that his current knowledge of both the defensive personnel and Pac-12 offenses make him the best option to fill the role." All a smokescreen to cover up the fact that no legitimate candidates were interested in the job.
<weeps silently on keyboard for the demise of a once great program>
People just laugh when you cite 'voices in my head.'What rumors? Link them.
The way I look at it, all great DC's had to start somewhere. Maybe Mac picks a younger guy for his first DC gig and sort of mentors/molds the guy.
You sound a tad unreasonable with your takes today.Lindgren was a proven OC at 2 different schools (granted small schools). Not quite just a position coach
You sound a tad unreasonable with your takes today.