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!

Hawk W-L BSU vs CU

HornBuff

Horns Down
How do you explain the results. Clearly Hawkins was doing something right at BSU.

So many variables though.


1999 Dirk Koetter 10 3
2000 Dirk Koetter 10 2
2001 Dan Hawkins 8 4
2002 Dan Hawkins 12 1
2003 Dan Hawkins 13 1
2004 Dan Hawkins 11 1
2005 Dan Hawkins 9 4
2006 Chris Petersen 13 0
2007 Chris Petersen 10 3
2008 Chris Petersen 12 1
2009 Chris Petersen 13 0



1999 Gary Barnett 7 5 0
2000 Gary Barnett 3 8 0
2001 Gary Barnett 10 3 0
2002 Gary Barnett 9 5 0
2003 Gary Barnett 5 7 0
2004 Gary Barnett 8 5 0
2005 Gary Barnett
Mike Hankwitz 7 6 0
2006 Dan Hawkins 2 10 0
2007 Dan Hawkins 6 7 0
2008 Dan Hawkins 5 7 0
2009 Dan Hawkins 3 9 0
 
Yes at BSU he had a great OC and when most of players in the conference are either one star or two stars then practice mvp do translate well on the field. But as he has stated this is the Big 12.
 
How do you explain the results. Clearly Hawkins was doing something right at BSU.

So many variables though.


1999 Dirk Koetter 10 3
2000 Dirk Koetter 10 2
2001 Dan Hawkins 8 4
2002 Dan Hawkins 12 1
2003 Dan Hawkins 13 1
2004 Dan Hawkins 11 1
2005 Dan Hawkins 9 4
2006 Chris Petersen 13 0
2007 Chris Petersen 10 3
2008 Chris Petersen 12 1
2009 Chris Petersen 13 0



1999 Gary Barnett 7 5 0
2000 Gary Barnett 3 8 0
2001 Gary Barnett 10 3 0
2002 Gary Barnett 9 5 0
2003 Gary Barnett 5 7 0
2004 Gary Barnett 8 5 0
2005 Gary Barnett
Mike Hankwitz 7 6 0
2006 Dan Hawkins 2 10 0
2007 Dan Hawkins 6 7 0
2008 Dan Hawkins 5 7 0
2009 Dan Hawkins 3 9 0

BSU had a commitment to building a program. They had moved up to D1 not too long before , around 1995. Koetter's predecessor was Houston Nutt (only for one year). Koetter took over about the time things began to gel for BSU.

Hawkins basically walked into a well-oiled machine. He won with a system that predated him and he lived on the laurels of his predecessors. There is nothing wrong with that.

When he came to CU, he began to mold it into BSU South. It didn't work. He hasn't been able to duplicate the success he enjoyed with a program that was simply in need of maintenance. CU was not burned to the ground, but did have some holes because of the scandal that wasn't. Hawkins simply has not built anything. He had the keys to a new car at BSU, he simply ran with it and had success. When he got the keys to sedan that needed some work at CU, he had no idea how to build on what he had. No shame in admitting failure in my book.

The real problem is in Dan's mind he really believes he built BSU to what it is today. Somebody linked a DH interview from the timeperiod between BSU and CU. IMO, he really thinks he was the BSU architect. They were winning before he got there and are winning after he was gone.

Dan's ego leads him to believe he knows what to do to build a program. The results are showing he doesn't.
 
BSU had a commitment to building a program. They had moved up to D1 not too long before , around 1995. Koetter's predecessor was Houston Nutt (only for one year). Koetter took over about the time things began to gel for BSU.

Hawkins basically walked into a well-oiled machine. He won with a system that predated him and he lived on the laurels of his predecessors. There is nothing wrong with that.

When he came to CU, he began to mold it into BSU South. It didn't work. He hasn't been able to duplicate the success he enjoyed with a program that was simply in need of maintenance. CU was not burned to the ground, but did have some holes because of the scandal that wasn't. Hawkins simply has not built anything. He had the keys to a new car at BSU, he simply ran with it and had success. When he got the keys to sedan that needed some work at CU, he had no idea how to build on what he had. No shame in admitting failure in my book.

The real problem is in Dan's mind he really believes he built BSU to what it is today. Somebody linked a DH interview from the timeperiod between BSU and CU. IMO, he really thinks he was the BSU architect. They were winning before he got there and are winning after he was gone.

Dan's ego leads him to believe he knows what to do to build a program. The results are showing he doesn't.


I don't think you give Hawk enough credit. No he didn't "build" the program but he ran it very well and left it in good shape. He proved he could win at that level in that situation.

On the other hand while Boise has done very well it is very different leading a program in the WAC and leading a program in the Big XII. Playing teams like Louisiana Tech and Utah State mean that you only face a few teams a year that are real threats to your record. In the Big XII even the worst teams have talented enough players to embarass even the best teams if they are not prepared.

Hawk is a classic example of the Peter Principle, he excelled at lower levels and rose to the level of his incompetence.
 
I don't think you give Hawk enough credit. No he didn't "build" the program but he ran it very well and left it in good shape. He proved he could win at that level in that situation.

On the other hand while Boise has done very well it is very different leading a program in the WAC and leading a program in the Big XII. Playing teams like Louisiana Tech and Utah State mean that you only face a few teams a year that are real threats to your record. In the Big XII even the worst teams have talented enough players to embarass even the best teams if they are not prepared.

Hawk is a classic example of the Peter Principle, he excelled at lower levels and rose to the level of his incompetence.

I give Hawk credit for riding the wave. He did not mess up the good thing BSu had going. That is a positive. I think he has done a pretty good job recruiting some talent here to CU. There is talent on the roster. He was supposed to be a PR machine, but aside from the honeymoon period every coach enjoys, he has put his foot in it right and left.

I give him credit. He didn't messup a good thing at BSU and that is probably harder than it sounds. He just isn't up to the job at a BCS school. How many first year coaches have showed up and beaten Hawk's CU squad? I forget the number but it's staggering.
 
Back
Top