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!

What is CU's "business plan"?

HornBuff

Horns Down
In your opinion, what is Colorado’s business plan? What is your model for success in football and are there any other schools out there producing consistent positive results that CU could realistically emulate?

In my mind, there are four elements of success for a football PROGRAM, not in any particular order:

1. Proximity to deep reservoirs of high school football talent.
2. Total financial resources available to the athletic department, from any source.
3. Football culture and priority/importance of football with the school, community, state, region.
4. Coaching

This is stating the obvious, but usually, success is a result of some combination of the above. However, only one or maybe two of these are really under your control. Either you have it or you don’t, typically. Some schools are able to overcome big holes in one or two of these elements by making up for it in the others. I think, historically, Nebraska is a good example of that. Obviously, at least three of these elements are kind of interrelated and interdependent, but I think you can make some general observations that hold true for the most part. For example, football is kind of life and death for the good folks of Tuscaloosa, but not so much with the folks in Berkeley. It’s not good or bad; it just is what it is. The school and the community in Tuscaloosa will go to any lengths and spend any amount of money to produce winning football and they’ll keep trying until it happens. It’s just not the same in Berkeley.

Football is a zero sum game. For every win there is a corresponding loss. There will always be the same number of losses as wins in a college football season from year to year. The only question is the allocation. It’s not like it’s an expanding market where everyone can win. Microsoft may sell more X-boxes in a given year than Sony sells Playstations, but both companies can achieve “success” in an expanding market by selling more and more units. It’s not as important that one is selling more than the other. With football, it’s a market share game. It’s not enough to just get better, you need to be better than the other guy/team.

CU is in a tough position in my opinion.
1. Proximity to football talent is “ok” at best. Denver metro is a top-20 MSA in terms of population, but it’s kind of an island. Once you leave the MSA it’s a very long way in any direction to another large population base.
2. Total financial resources are probably average and probably far below the “top-tier” schools.
3. Support from school, community and region for CU is very low relative to other successful programs. I think that’s CU’s biggest problem. Boulder is sort of a double edged sword. Awesome place to live. It’s a culture of health and sports, which, ironically is counterproductive for spectator sports. The masses would rather get out and participate in sports than sit on their ***** and watch sports. Again, I’m speaking in broad and general terms.
4. Coaching at CU is at the bottom of the barrel right now. I think you guys really screwed up firing GB. Major overreaction to the circumstances and a few bad losses. I think that guy was perfect for CU. That’s kind of the oddity of CU; the support is quite low, but the expectations are sky high. Barnett was doing pretty darn well at CU, considering the relative lack of support, but that’s another discussion.

So that’s what CU has to work with. How do you beat the other guys? How do you move to the front of the pack? What can you do better than the other guy is doing? What is your niche? What is your competitive advantage? It seems to me, CU, more than other schools, has to rely heavily on #4. Coach Mac is exhibit A. Unfortunately, there aren’t many of those guys just hanging around and typically, once those guys start winning they tend to want to get paid a lot of money.
 
So how does CU have an edge on the Pac 10 schools? Right now, CU is probably in a position that is superior to only WSU. How does that change?
 
1: Horns out
2: Razor hair
3: Cinch it up
4: Blue Colloar
5: Little things
6: ????
7: POP!!
8: ??????
9: National championship in January
10: Contract extension
 
CU's plan is to run a once proud program into the ground. DII has executed such plan flawlessly.
 
Any other schools out there right now you see as a model for CU to return to success?

Hell, they all see CU as a model for their success.

Wait...I'm not sure I understand the question.
 
1: Horns out
2: Razor hair
3: Cinch it up
4: Blue Colloar
5: Little things
6: ????
7: POP!!
8: ??????
9: National championship in January
10: Contract extension

No, no, no. The contract extension has to happen first. That's the only thing keeping Hakwins from being successful, you know. Just a few million more ought to fix that.
 
CU will need a different plan to get back in contention. Something like Mac put together in the run up to the gravy days.

Coach: Will need someone who can bring in and successfully mentor guys getting passed on by other schools because they have backgrounds that make it hard to succeed in a typical big school atmosphere. Think small-town, and inner-city kids. The coach will need to be able to sway the administration into making exceptions for some. This was supposed to be one of Hawk's strong points, but he just kept bending over backwards for the admin and got almost nothing in return.

System: Need something besides the typical "me-too" schemes. Til the new coach lays down a track record of winning it'll be hard for CU to keep up with the Joneses on the recruiting front. Plenty of great athletes out there who really don't fit the schemes run at the 'bigtime' programs. Make a place for them.

Atmosphere: Believe it or not, there are some kids not really interested in the kind of headache that comes with being the starting QB at say Notre Dame. Sell the intimacy of Boulder and Folsom Field. Big conference football in a more collegiate atmosphere.
 
So how does CU have an edge on the Pac 10 schools? Right now, CU is probably in a position that is superior to only WSU. How does that change?

Resource-wise, CU is in the top third of the Pac-12. Facilities and fan support are also top half. In-state recruiting is probably the best outside of California since our competition all have an in-state BCS competitor (or more popular prestige program like BYU in Utah's case). Academics is top third of the conference. Campus lifestyle is top third. Football prestige is top third from a historical perspective.

I think you very much underestimate the advantages CU has.

We're a lot like Washington. Still not back, but it looks like Sarkisian has them headed in the right direction (at least in recruiting). The stadium improvements are going to help them, too.

Wisconsin circa 1990 is also a good comparable when you consider academics, being the lone BCS program in a state that has decent talent but where you still need to find a lot of guys from elsewhere, and where facilities had lagged behind the top dogs. Looking at where they were and what they have accomplished since (football and basketball), that would be my main case study if I was the CU AD.
 
This is not a business silly, this is an academic institution that likes to have equal access to sporting activities....
 
Hell, they all see CU as a model for their success.

Wait...I'm not sure I understand the question.

My question is this: what schools out there are winnign without top-tier resources, recruits and support? How are they doing it and can CU follow the same path?
 
My question is this: what schools out there are winnign without top-tier resources, recruits and support? How are they doing it and can CU follow the same path?

Sorry. I actually did understand the question, I just thought it was more fun to answer it my way and then plead ignorance.
 
I think you very much underestimate the advantages CU has.

We're a lot like Washington. Still not back, but it looks like Sarkisian has them headed in the right direction (at least in recruiting). The stadium improvements are going to help them, too.

Wisconsin circa 1990 is also a good comparable when you consider academics, being the lone BCS program in a state that has decent talent but where you still need to find a lot of guys from elsewhere, and where facilities had lagged behind the top dogs. Looking at where they were and what they have accomplished since (football and basketball), that would be my main case study if I was the CU AD.

I would not put good academics as an advantage. It's neutral at best. It's a limiting factor. For every top football recruit that is seekign rigor in academics there are 100 who are lookign for the easy path.

I personally think that Washington is VERY similar to CU in many many ways. Unfortunatly, WU has sucked for quite a while now. Maybe on the right track though with teh coach.
 
My question is this: what schools out there are winnign without top-tier resources, recruits and support? How are they doing it and can CU follow the same path?

Winning comes first. Take care of that, and then they'll have leverage for better recruits/facilities/support. Need a coach who can overachieve for at least a couple years until the bandwagon fills back up.
 
No, no, no. The contract extension has to happen first. That's the only thing keeping Hakwins from being successful, you know. Just a few million more ought to fix that.

Well, you know, these things above are, well, kind of all importatnt to success. The order isn't as importatnt as the process, and we are doing things the right way. It all about to happen and as long as the extension is there and a raise is there and i am here and the kids execute perfectly and stop messing up, and we can build this place back from ashes and. its really just one of those things that is all about it. and a big part of it is success. the success is lunchpail, contract extension is most important thing, you know, a few plays away just one of those things
 
I would not put good academics as an advantage. It's neutral at best. It's a limiting factor. For every top football recruit that is seekign rigor in academics there are 100 who are lookign for the easy path.

I personally think that Washington is VERY similar to CU in many many ways. Unfortunatly, WU has sucked for quite a while now. Maybe on the right track though with teh coach.

Academics is a huge advantage if admissions are relaxed. Look at Cal.

In some ways, CU is tough to get into which hurts us for JUCOs. But we're getting some kids out of high school into CU that a program like Michigan can't take. So it's a plus for us. It would help even more if our graduation rate and APR scores got where they needed to be so we could sell that more. But at least we should be out of the woods with penalties now and I know that Mike Bohn has put a big emphasis on improving academic support for our athletes. That will pay dividends.
 
CU will need a different plan to get back in contention. Something like Mac put together in the run up to the gravy days.

Coach: Will need someone who can bring in and successfully mentor guys getting passed on by other schools because they have backgrounds that make it hard to succeed in a typical big school atmosphere. Think small-town, and inner-city kids. The coach will need to be able to sway the administration into making exceptions for some. This was supposed to be one of Hawk's strong points, but he just kept bending over backwards for the admin and got almost nothing in return.

System: Need something besides the typical "me-too" schemes. Til the new coach lays down a track record of winning it'll be hard for CU to keep up with the Joneses on the recruiting front. Plenty of great athletes out there who really don't fit the schemes run at the 'bigtime' programs. Make a place for them.

Atmosphere: Believe it or not, there are some kids not really interested in the kind of headache that comes with being the starting QB at say Notre Dame. Sell the intimacy of Boulder and Folsom Field. Big conference football in a more collegiate atmosphere.

Great response! That makes a lot of sense to me. I actually think this is the lock down right path for CU. And then like the other poster said, once you start winnign you'll be able to get some of the top recruits, more fan support, etc. But it think you have to start here and not just try to copy what Florida or Bama are doing.
 
The two programs that come immediately to mind as being reasonably comparable to CU are Washington and Wisconsin. These two are similar in many ways to CU. What they have that CU lacks is the full support and cooperation from their administration to build a winning program. I think CU is almost there.

Other programs that fit the same mold are West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona State, Arizona. I think we're right in that area in terms of what we have, and what we could have if we just set our minds to it.

Each of those schools has certain advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis CU, though. The weather is a lot better here. The campus is nicer. But the facilities aren't as good. We don't have the fan support that places like Arkansas and Wisconsin enjoy, but our fans are probably less fickle than those at Arizona State or Arizona.

Ultimately, I view Wisconsin as the model for what CU should be trying to accomplish. Big school with no other BCS competition in a state without a ton of home-grown talent in a major BCS conference. If Wisconsin has a model, or a plan, that they put in place, we should study it and run the same playbook.
 
I remember Wisconsin had a great running back--I think Calhoun was his name--that guy was a model for success. Would love to have a player like him.
 
The two programs that come immediately to mind as being reasonably comparable to CU are Washington and Wisconsin. These two are similar in many ways to CU. What they have that CU lacks is the full support and cooperation from their administration to build a winning program. I think CU is almost there.

Other programs that fit the same mold are West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona State, Arizona. I think we're right in that area in terms of what we have, and what we could have if we just set our minds to it.

Each of those schools has certain advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis CU, though. The weather is a lot better here. The campus is nicer. But the facilities aren't as good. We don't have the fan support that places like Arkansas and Wisconsin enjoy, but our fans are probably less fickle than those at Arizona State or Arizona.

Ultimately, I view Wisconsin as the model for what CU should be trying to accomplish. Big school with no other BCS competition in a state without a ton of home-grown talent in a major BCS conference. If Wisconsin has a model, or a plan, that they put in place, we should study it and run the same playbook.

Great post! I think you're right on. Maybe add Utah to that list of AZ schools and others if you're talking recent history, maybe.
 
Step 1: go to a conference that will pay you more while you spend very little on your programs. You make the biggest profit, reap the biggest cash donation.
 
The comp that we need to emulate is Iowa. Like CU, Iowa is a one-trick pony... football is king, and the other sports suck.

Despite what the people of Ames say, UIowa is the main show in the state, a state that doesn't produce too much talent. As such, they going fishing in Chicago and in the northeast. They don't recruit that well, but their coaching sets them apart.
 
God no. Wisky's offense is about as boring as it gets. 32 Blast, 32 Blast, 21 Dive, punt.

The two programs that come immediately to mind as being reasonably comparable to CU are Washington and Wisconsin. These two are similar in many ways to CU. What they have that CU lacks is the full support and cooperation from their administration to build a winning program. I think CU is almost there.

Other programs that fit the same mold are West Virginia, Arkansas, Arizona State, Arizona. I think we're right in that area in terms of what we have, and what we could have if we just set our minds to it.

Each of those schools has certain advantages and disadvantages vis-a-vis CU, though. The weather is a lot better here. The campus is nicer. But the facilities aren't as good. We don't have the fan support that places like Arkansas and Wisconsin enjoy, but our fans are probably less fickle than those at Arizona State or Arizona.

Ultimately, I view Wisconsin as the model for what CU should be trying to accomplish. Big school with no other BCS competition in a state without a ton of home-grown talent in a major BCS conference. If Wisconsin has a model, or a plan, that they put in place, we should study it and run the same playbook.
 
Back
Top