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!

Gary Barnett

DBT

Club Member
Club Member
I have to say, GB, on 1510 this morning, made a VERY strong argument for keeping Dan. He basically argued that continual replacements of coaches really set most programs back for years. He believes there is a strong possiblity that Dan will turn it around next year. He thinks Dan made the same mistake he made when he went to Northwestern from Colorado. That is that he came here not understanding the dirrerences between Colorado and Boise St. According to GB, that is a common mistake for guys making their first big move.

He also discussed his termination. He felt like the program had weathered the storm and was ready to get beyond the scandal. He said that the year he was let go, they'd made it to #13 and then suffered a "really fluky" loss to ISU. When that happened, he felt like the players just had a mental melt down. He said that he and the playere had been told by Bohn that the staff would be retained. So he kind of implied that he and the players were stabbed in the back. As for Hawkins, he said that there are many thing behind the scenes that could be happening. Bohn could be on his own or he could be getting infuence from above.

GB said that the costs of firing a staff and bringing in a new one are a lot higher than you think. Aside from the buyout, there are the finaizing of the old staff's salarys, the fact that you will have to pay a new staff more than the one you are replacing, the fact that you have to pay moving expenses, etc.

Anyway, these are GB's opinions and I thought they were worth discussing. I did not get Syko's approval before posting this thread. :lol:
 
I am tired of hearing about the difficulty of the Big 12 relative to the WAC when our season was over this year after we played COLORADO STATE and TOLEDO. The conference we play in has nothing to do with it.

Newsflash: playing in the big 12 has nothing to do with our propensity to get embarrassed in our OOC schedule every year under Hawkins but last.
 
I am tired of hearing about the difficulty of the Big 12 relative to the WAC when our season was over this year after we played COLORADO STATE and TOLEDO. The conference we play in has nothing to do with it.

Newsflash: playing in the big 12 has nothing to do with our propensity to get embarrassed in our OOC schedule every year under Hawkins but last.
That has nothing to do with what GB meant. He was talking, I think, about the different culture going from one place to another. That what works at one school may not work at the next. He thought he could go to Northwestern and that what had worked at CU would work there, and it didn't. It took him a while to figure that out.
 
I am tired of hearing about the difficulty of the Big 12 relative to the WAC when our season was over this year after we played COLORADO STATE and TOLEDO. The conference we play in has nothing to do with it.

Newsflash: playing in the big 12 has nothing to do with our propensity to get embarrassed in our OOC schedule every year under Hawkins but last.


Can you work on your reading comp. please - Barney wasnt talking about anything on the field when he discussed the difficulty of moving to CO and the mistakes he made when coming over from Northwestern. Nor is he refrencing the level of play in the big 12 or the OOC when he says he thinks dan made the same mistakes.
 
Hawkins still doesn't get it. His personnel selections are still abysmal. Our running game sucks to the point that DS leaves because he won't even play him. Simmons STILL sits on the bench and watches Cody Hawkins go out to catch passes. It took him 7 games into year 3 to bench his woefully inadequate QB, who happens to be his son.

Mohler and Rippy and Major sit on the sidelines and watch our slow, unathletic LBs provide mediocre performances at best. Keenan Stevens still takes snaps over Mike Iltis and no one really knows why the hell Givens only plays in half our games.

Running off DS and Jfly and Maiava because he literally refused to give them adequate playing time when they were some of the best players on the team is unforgivable. Look how many players have left this team under Hawkins because he refused to play them despite horrible production at their positions.

Apparently every 4 or 5 star athlete we've ever recruited to CU under Hawkins is some kind of enormous bust, because not a single one of them is a bright spot on the team right now. Some of them aren't even here right now.

None of this BS is related to the Big 12. Going 6-10 OOC is not the Big 12. It isn't the culture. It's being a horrible coach, period.
 
i like GB but it was time for him to go. Hawkins was the right hire, just not a good hire apparently.

while i understand the reasoning, i personally don't think i could handle another Hawk off-season. the guy needs to come clean and admit he's got a 33% win record and not keep telling us about a formula or it's just small things or "clean things up".

bottom line is we have sucked under Hawkins.
 
I have often thought about this very same issue, and prior to taking a position that Hawkins should be let go held out hope for this very same reason. Continuity can be both a positive and negative, however.

I believe in giving a new staff 2-3 years to really show progress in implementing their brand of football. Things have gotten worse from year 2 to year 3 to year 4 now, not a positive side of continuity.

If player development, community outreach, and a semblance of a "core" identity to the team had been established to this point, I would still make the argument to retain Hawkins. None of that has happened, and has gotten exponentially worse over this past year.

There is a false assumption that continuity is solved by simply retaining the coaching staff. I disagree, I think we have been suffering the past two seasons because Hawkins has NOT maintained continuity in his coaching, in his strategy, in his player development, or in his representation of the team. He has provided the lack of continuity by himself. Bringing in a new coach will not be the cause of further erosion in stability, but it could very well be a line in the sand that future stability is built on.
 
You give Hawkins a pass in year 1, maybe 2, possibly year 3 if the team was showing significant signs of turning the corner.

This is year 4 and the team is no better than when Hawkins got here. Has anyone seen anything on the field that indicates anything Hawkins has done is working?

The team leads the nation in penalties, and O ranks as one of the worst teams in in the Big 12, and nation when you look at scoring, total yards, passing, and running.

Our special teams are a joke. Our D has consistently given up HUGE plays, and ranks among the worst teams in the nation at giving up plays longer than 25 yards.

Hawkins appears clueless on the sidelines during games, and from the beginning of the year has been a total asshat during the week dealing with the media and fans.

Hawkins has two good wins since he arrived. OU and WVU, both games were at home. The KU win this year is a joke now that KU has lost 5 straight.

Quick question for everyone and a rep to the first correct response, when was the last time Hawkins/CU won on the road against the Big 12 North?

I don't expect Barnett or any other coach in football to come on the radio and say that anyone with games left in the season should be fired. Coaches are not going to throw other coaches under the bus.

Everyone knows that the buyout is going to cost a ton of money, but can CU afford to keep this clown around for year 5? Next years schedule is going to much harder than this year. How much is it going to cost CU next year when Hawkins is still here and the team finishes with 3 or 4 wins and there are about 15,000 empty seats in the stadium for every game?
 
I have to say, GB, on 1510 this morning, made a VERY strong argument for keeping Dan. He basically argued that continual replacements of coaches really set most programs back for years. He believes there is a strong possiblity that Dan will turn it around next year. He thinks Dan made the same mistake he made when he went to Northwestern from Colorado. That is that he came here not understanding the dirrerences between Colorado and Boise St. According to GB, that is a common mistake for guys making their first big move.

He also discussed his termination. He felt like the program had weathered the storm and was ready to get beyond the scandal. He said that the year he was let go, they'd made it to #13 and then suffered a "really fluky" loss to ISU. When that happened, he felt like the players just had a mental melt down. He said that he and the playere had been told by Bohn that the staff would be retained. So he kind of implied that he and the players were stabbed in the back. As for Hawkins, he said that there are many thing behind the scenes that could be happening. Bohn could be on his own or he could be getting infuence from above.

GB said that the costs of firing a staff and bringing in a new one are a lot higher than you think. Aside from the buyout, there are the finaizing of the old staff's salarys, the fact that you will have to pay a new staff more than the one you are replacing, the fact that you have to pay moving expenses, etc.

Anyway, these are GB's opinions and I thought they were worth discussing. I did not get Syko's approval before posting this thread. :lol:


I have never seen another coach advocate for another coach to be fired....

What he says is all reasonable.... and has no bearing on this situation...
 
Yeah, I think GB was definitely taking the high road. And, yeah, just about any coach is going to defend another coach.

The really interesting stuff was him kind of defending his regime and implying that they should not have been let go when they were. Iteresting stuff. I also admit, I have always liked GB. But I think his recruiting was really slipping. He probably had no choice but to publicly buy in to all the restrictions Bitsy forced on the program.
 
if hawky come's back for year 5 ....wonder how many fan's become football slut's and become's ucla fan's? is it ok to think about it...:lol:. btw dont ever recall a former coach coming out and saying another coach should be fired !!!:gobuffs:
 
I have to say, GB, on 1510 this morning, made a VERY strong argument for keeping Dan. He basically argued that continual replacements of coaches really set most programs back for years. He believes there is a strong possiblity that Dan will turn it around next year. He thinks Dan made the same mistake he made when he went to Northwestern from Colorado. That is that he came here not understanding the dirrerences between Colorado and Boise St. According to GB, that is a common mistake for guys making their first big move.

He also discussed his termination. He felt like the program had weathered the storm and was ready to get beyond the scandal. He said that the year he was let go, they'd made it to #13 and then suffered a "really fluky" loss to ISU. When that happened, he felt like the players just had a mental melt down. He said that he and the playere had been told by Bohn that the staff would be retained. So he kind of implied that he and the players were stabbed in the back. As for Hawkins, he said that there are many thing behind the scenes that could be happening. Bohn could be on his own or he could be getting infuence from above.

GB said that the costs of firing a staff and bringing in a new one are a lot higher than you think. Aside from the buyout, there are the finaizing of the old staff's salarys, the fact that you will have to pay a new staff more than the one you are replacing, the fact that you have to pay moving expenses, etc.

Anyway, these are GB's opinions and I thought they were worth discussing. I did not get Syko's approval before posting this thread. :lol:

This sudden media fascination with Gary Barnett is certainly interesting. Most of these people interviewing him now are the same people who were advocating his firing a few years ago.

I think he is probably right, that there is a big difference in being the head coach at Boise and being the head coach at Colorado. I think Hawkins, and many of the coaches on his staff, have greatly struggled in this area. This is one reason why I think it is important for Bohn to make getting a coach with a strong BCS background a priority.

I am not sure where Barnett is getting his info but I think CU could hire someone who is a coordinator at another BCS school and pay at or below Hawkins current salary. The head coach pay is not CU's problem. CU needs to step up their pay to the assistant coaches. That is where CU has the most difficulty, IMO.
 
I have to say, GB, on 1510 this morning, made a VERY strong argument for keeping Dan. He basically argued that continual replacements of coaches really set most programs back for years. He believes there is a strong possiblity that Dan will turn it around next year. He thinks Dan made the same mistake he made when he went to Northwestern from Colorado. That is that he came here not understanding the dirrerences between Colorado and Boise St. According to GB, that is a common mistake for guys making their first big move.

He also discussed his termination. He felt like the program had weathered the storm and was ready to get beyond the scandal. He said that the year he was let go, they'd made it to #13 and then suffered a "really fluky" loss to ISU. When that happened, he felt like the players just had a mental melt down. He said that he and the playere had been told by Bohn that the staff would be retained. So he kind of implied that he and the players were stabbed in the back. As for Hawkins, he said that there are many thing behind the scenes that could be happening. Bohn could be on his own or he could be getting infuence from above.

GB said that the costs of firing a staff and bringing in a new one are a lot higher than you think. Aside from the buyout, there are the finaizing of the old staff's salarys, the fact that you will have to pay a new staff more than the one you are replacing, the fact that you have to pay moving expenses, etc.

Anyway, these are GB's opinions and I thought they were worth discussing. I did not get Syko's approval before posting this thread. :lol:

A lot of that makes sense to me.

I certainly felt the program had gotten past the scandal. I did find the termination of GB a little odd since it was a year after blood was in the water and justified only by losing to Texas. :huh: All of us, blindly, were happy to see him go. Our program certainly has been set back by the change at HC. :cry:

It's obvious the Hawkins made some mistakes. Some of his classes were pretty good. Some were not. What I can't get past is the transfers and recruitment of kids that couldn't get in. Obviously there are kids in that class that would have gotten into BSU that did no get in here. Hawkins has a lot to improve upon in this area. Picking players that can get in, handle being away from home and help them solve it when they cant.

Lastly, for me, this team does appear to have a pretty fragile ego. The penalties and mistakes and glazed over look on the sideline don't inspire confidence in me. They look like they are waiting for the coaches to lead them through this fire and maybe the coaches are not doing that. Or their not buying it. Some of them do need to step up and assume the role of drill sergeant and leader. They are all in it together afterall.

It's a pickle.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top