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!

Phil Steele's national mag is out

RalphieMalph

Well-Known Member
Just thumbed through it at barnes and noble, but I won't buy any of his stuff until the regional magazines come out.

Steele's certainly not very taken with the 2008 Buffs though, I can tell you that for certain. He didn't have CU ranked anywhere in his preseason top 40, and his forecast said that the Buffs would be underdogs in 7 of their 12 games (I can easily see 5, 6 is rational enough, but I don't see 7 games on our schedule that scream "underdog" to me) and that we might make it to a bowl game if we can pull a couple of upsets. :huh:

On the plus side, he said that CSU would struggle to match their win total from last season (3), so at least he's not 100% off base :lol::thumbsup:
 
If we're talking just a straight point spread, I see it coming out like this:

CSU - Buffs favored
Eastern Washington - Buffs favored
West Virginia - WVU favored
at Florida State - FSU favored

Texas - UT favored
at Kansas - KU favored
KSU - Buffs favored
at Missouri - MU favored
at Texas A&M - Aggies favored
ISU - Buffs favored
OSU - Buffs favored
at Nebraska - Huskers favored

I think that's 7 games where the Buffs will be underdogs and 5 games where the Buffs will be favorites.
 
i count only 5 games we are under dogs in. he obviously forgot we got d scott.
In his prediction for 2008 for CU, he did mention that if Scott lives up to his hype that CU would make a bowl. He said that Kansas is going to lose 5 games. I think he's probably right on both.
 
We're going to kill KU. Losing that game pissed me off more than losing to ISU. Beating KU would've been huge for Hawk. Huge. But that's what you get when dealing with a team that has this many underclassman starting.
 
Last edited:
If we're talking just a straight point spread, I see it coming out like this:

CSU - Buffs favored
Eastern Washington - Buffs favored
West Virginia - WVU favored
at Florida State - FSU favored

Texas - UT favored
at Kansas - KU favored
KSU - Buffs favored
at Missouri - MU favored
at Texas A&M - Aggies favored
ISU - Buffs favored
OSU - Buffs favored
at Nebraska - Huskers favored

I think that's 7 games where the Buffs will be underdogs and 5 games where the Buffs will be favorites.

Where are you getting TAMU and Nebraska from? Two first year head coaches at the helms of programs that have been steadily (and occasionally dramatically) declining over the past 5 years being favored over a 3rd year head coach running a program that reached a bowl game last year while starting freshmen at almost every offensive position. To me at least, that makes absolutely no sense.

And Kansas won't be favored over CU by the time they meet. There, I said it. :smile2:
 
we are at both of those schools and and they are the two of the hardest stadiums to play at in the country. Also even though they are both first year coaches they arent installing drastically new systems so the changes shouldn't be too tough to swallow. The nubs could actually be pretty good, 9-3 with thier schedule isnt out of reach.
 
Where are you getting TAMU and Nebraska from? Two first year head coaches at the helms of programs that have been steadily (and occasionally dramatically) declining over the past 5 years being favored over a 3rd year head coach running a program that reached a bowl game last year while starting freshmen at almost every offensive position. To me at least, that makes absolutely no sense.

And Kansas won't be favored over CU by the time they meet. There, I said it. :smile2:

I think your homerism is showing. All three of those games are road games and Hawk hasn't fared particularly well on the road. In fact, I believe he's only won twice on the road since he got here - Tech and Baylor last year. That's hardly a resounding endorsement of CU's road abilities. Based on that alone, CU probably will be underdogs in all three of those games. I happen to think we'll beat both A&M (We always seem to) and *ebraska (they really do suck). But from a completely unbiased perspective, it's not hard to see why we'd be considered underdogs in those games.
 
I think your homerism is showing. All three of those games are road games and Hawk hasn't fared particularly well on the road. In fact, I believe he's only won twice on the road since he got here - Tech and Baylor last year. That's hardly a resounding endorsement of CU's road abilities. Based on that alone, CU probably will be underdogs in all three of those games. I happen to think we'll beat both A&M (We always seem to) and *ebraska (they really do suck). But from a completely unbiased perspective, it's not hard to see why we'd be considered underdogs in those games.

Exactly. We had a decent season last year, but we still had a losing record. Until we prove we can be more consistent (especially on the road), we won't be getting much respect.
 
Where are you getting TAMU and Nebraska from? Two first year head coaches at the helms of programs that have been steadily (and occasionally dramatically) declining over the past 5 years being favored over a 3rd year head coach running a program that reached a bowl game last year while starting freshmen at almost every offensive position. To me at least, that makes absolutely no sense.

And Kansas won't be favored over CU by the time they meet. There, I said it. :smile2:


All three of those games are ROAD GAMES.

Vegas automatically assigns 3 points to every HOME team in football. So if a team is favored by 7 points at home, Vegas is saying that they think it would be a 4 point game on a neutral site. If a team is a home UNDERDOG, then Vegas is saying they think that team would lose even bigger if the game was played on a neutral field.

Certain teams get more points for home games. Texas, OU, Nebraska, and Texas A&M are all schools in the Big 12 that are going to get more points at home.

For example, last year's CU/FSU game, played in Boulder, CU was a +4 underdog. That was Vegas' way of saying, if the game had been played on a neutral field, FSU would have won by 7. I suspect if the game had been played in Tallahassee, FSU would have been an even bigger favorite.

I am pretty sure that Phil Steele tracks historic trends re: betting odds so you might pick up one of his books to see how the Vegas lines have followed the Buffs over the last few years.
 
We play like dog**** in Lawrence and Columbia. No way I'm ever counting those two as a W until the final gun sounds and we have the lead.
 
It's football, and with the team still being very young, I expect us to win a game we really have no business winning, and to lose a game that will drive us all insane. I just hope to god its not CSU.
 
It's football, and with the team still being very young, I expect us to win a game we really have no business winning, and to lose a game that will drive us all insane. I just hope to god its not CSU.

It's liable to be Oklahoma State. Those dorks always manage to play us tough in Boulder. They're the KSU of the South. Totaly schitzophrenic.
 
If we're talking just a straight point spread, I see it coming out like this:

CSU - Buffs favored
Eastern Washington - Buffs favored
West Virginia - WVU favored
at Florida State - FSU favored

Texas - UT favored
at Kansas - KU favored
KSU - Buffs favored
at Missouri - MU favored
at Texas A&M - Aggies favored
ISU - Buffs favored
OSU - Buffs favored
at Nebraska - Huskers favored

I think that's 7 games where the Buffs will be underdogs and 5 games where the Buffs will be favorites.

KU would probably be favored right now. But if next season unfolds as some are predicting, I'm not sure that will be true. Same for UNL...
 
Just thumbed through it at barnes and noble, but I won't buy any of his stuff until the regional magazines come out.

Isn't his national magazine detailed enough for you?? I get the impression from reading his description of his regional magazines is that they're not available in newsstands and the only way to get them is to order them.
 
we need bruisers at safety outside of Walters. And more speed at line backer. 3-4 is great.

The Dallas Cowboys run it. It's also better for the spread since you have more coverage minded players in linebackers instead of a DT. To punish the spread, one needs to have bruisers at safety.

You don't need to have flighty ball hawking safeties, you need safeties that make you regret catching lob passes, and having CB's 6'0-6'2 would help, since the spread likes to pit individual matchups alot and 6'4 WR are a nightmare for the Chappelle Browns of the world.

Just look at the Huff and Griffin manned secondary of the 70-3 longhorns in 05, that secondary was brutal, and those guys made you pay.

Look at Oklahoma's manhandling of Missouri.

the spread can be handled, you need the right players to do it. speed linebackers is more crucial than speed on the corners.

with the 3-4 your blitz packages will be harder to read by the opposing team. The center will have an enormous responsibilty in figuring out who the blitzers are.
 
we need bruisers at safety outside of Walters. And more speed at line backer. 3-4 is great.

The Dallas Cowboys run it. It's also better for the spread since you have more coverage minded players in linebackers instead of a DT. To punish the spread, one needs to have bruisers at safety.

You don't need to have flighty ball hawking safeties, you need safeties that make you regret catching lob passes, and having CB's 6'0-6'2 would help, since the spread likes to pit individual matchups alot and 6'4 WR are a nightmare for the Chappelle Browns of the world.

Just look at the Huff and Griffin manned secondary of the 70-3 longhorns in 05, that secondary was brutal, and those guys made you pay.

Look at Oklahoma's manhandling of Missouri.

the spread can be handled, you need the right players to do it. speed linebackers is more crucial than speed on the corners.

with the 3-4 your blitz packages will be harder to read by the opposing team. The center will have an enormous responsibilty in figuring out who the blitzers are.

Welcome to Allbuffs. Rep delivered. :thumbsup:Glad you found the party. Have a beer!
 
Welcome to Allbuffs. Rep delivered. :thumbsup:Glad you found the party. Have a beer!

And get us one while you're up.


Snap to it newb. The beer ain't gonna just stroll over here all on it's own ya know.
 
Isn't his national magazine detailed enough for you?? I get the impression from reading his description of his regional magazines is that they're not available in newsstands and the only way to get them is to order them.

The regional mag gives 6 pages of coverage for each team, whereas the national only gives 2. Also, and this is a HUGE pet peeve for me with Phil Steele, he quite honestly spends 90% of his "Phil's Forecast" space on the Buffs talking about the predictions he's made about CU in the past.

Paraphrasing Phil's "Forecast" said:
Back in 2000 Colorado went 3-8, but I picked them as a surprise national title contender in 01. They finished the season ranked 3rd in the country... in 2002 I said this and they did this, in 2003 I said this and they did this, in 2004 I said this and they did this, in 2005 I said this and they did this, in 2006 I said this and they did this, last year I said they might have a chance to make a bowl and then they did, but they didn't win. This year they'll probably be underdogs in 7 of their 12 games, though maybe they'll make a bowl

Wow, thanks for the stirring forecast, Phil! I totally have a good idea of what you're expecting from this year's team after reading that! Uggh... anyway, in the regional mag (which I bought at the newsstand last year, hopefully they haven't yoinked it from non-mail order sales) you get a bit more prognosticating, and better stats for researching Big XII opponents. Just a personal preference.
 
The regional mag gives 6 pages of coverage for each team, whereas the national only gives 2. Also, and this is a HUGE pet peeve for me with Phil Steele, he quite honestly spends 90% of his "Phil's Forecast" space on the Buffs talking about the predictions he's made about CU in the past.

Wow, thanks for the stirring forecast, Phil! I totally have a good idea of what you're expecting from this year's team after reading that! Uggh... anyway, in the regional mag (which I bought at the newsstand last year, hopefully they haven't yoinked it from non-mail order sales) you get a bit more prognosticating, and better stats for researching Big XII opponents. Just a personal preference.

Very true, he does spend quite a bit of time talking about a team's performance of the past few seasons. He does that for every team. That's one of the things I don't like about his magazine, that he doesn't have a quick overview of teams. Based on what you said about his regional magazines, maybe I'll order a copy of the Big XII one. :cool:
 
Very true, he does spend quite a bit of time talking about a team's performance of the past few seasons. He does that for every team. That's one of the things I don't like about his magazine, that he doesn't have a quick overview of teams. Based on what you said about his regional magazines, maybe I'll order a copy of the Big XII one. :cool:

Well, the regional mag isn't that much better (he still spends way too much time talking about the past in lieu of the present), but it's an improvement. On the whole, the national mag is a far better read (and an infinitely better bathroom companion), I just prefer to know a lot about a small number of teams rather than a little about a large number.
 
Frightening. Phil is usually spot on on his calls. He also posts his record somewhere in that mag in terms of how he did the season before. I remember it being pretty good. His magazine is all about betting and attracting the gambler as a buyer so you can't suck.

I hope he's wrong.
 
Back
Top