Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by rynobuff, Nov 1, 2011.
The program was in decline. I have no issues with firing GB.
I have a feeling the problems that happened during his time at the helm would have only gotten worse as time went along and the end result would have been the same anyway. 70 - 3 says a bundle for me.
I caught the first part after he finished rambling on and on. They asked what he would do if he were king to fix the program. He said there wasn't any one thing but he noted things that he's seen at every top 20 school
1) A commitment to excellence in football that starts at the President, moves down to the Chancelor. An AD that has been immersed in football in the past.
2) More majors for athletes. He said CU offers very few majors that athletes like to pursue, and so at CU most athletes are in Sociology, Ethnic Studies, or some in Business.
I stopped listening after that
I was at that ISU game. Talk about your total meltdown.
After almost having a chance in 2001 to play in the NC game, look at the recruiting class for 2002. Not too good. Oddly, Gary B wasn't a great recruiter. That 2001 team was his last one with deep talent and it was Slick Rick's talent. Gary failed to parlay that year and then the "incident" happened, followed by "foot in mouth on ESPN" and it was over.
Liked him then and now but he wasn't the guy we needed at the time. He just didn't recruit well enough.
I know I'm probably wrong, but I wonder if he would've gotten any slack if he'd fired Watson. It seemed to me that he was unwilling to make any changes to his coaching staff unless it got really, really bad. Remember Okruch?
GB needed to be fired because of the "incident". Funny thing was I wanted him fired before the incident because I didn't think the team was moving in the correct direction. Then the "incident" happened and they still kept him.
Had the university just done that everything would have ended. Instead they kept GB, he had a decent season with the team playing us against the world, but the damage was already done.
Holic you are correct with GB's recruiting. We should have had a loaded class after the 2001 season, and instead it was really a poor class.
The 2002 class was #10 in the nation, hardly bad.
The reason we got that high is because the size of the class. The one five star kid was a bust, and with the exception of Calhoun (who left the program) every four star kid was a bust. It was very bad for a program coming off a great season like we had in 2001.
Barnett's last class was the first one where I followed recruiting. THe way I remember it was that it was gonna be absolutely terrible
eric Bieniemy and Embree played a big part in landing that class.
You ****tards missed the most important point. The CU admin is not committed to athletics and has not been since Gordon Gee. Until we prioritize athletics, we will suck at them. I've been saying this over and over. We, our admin, do not give a flying **** about sports. Until they do, we will suck. Embree has been thrown under the bus. He has no support from the top.
The activia not working out for ya?
Care to be specific or are you just going to continue to throw this generalization out there every so often?
He's right though, the administration isn't committed to athletic excellence.
It will always be an uphill battle, but DBT thinks the administration support is still at the same level it was during the Barnett era. Simply not true.
Maybe so but it's still not good.
That clears it up, thanks.
Pound sand ****waffle.
Listen, first, GB says the admin has not supported athletics strongly since the Gee days with Mac and before GB. I'm saying that GB is saying that support has NOT been there since those days. Are you saying that has changed? I honestly do not know what the support level is now. GB claims it is not there. You disagree. I have no clue. I hope you are right.
It is getting better, especially when it comes to admissions. Still have work to do.
In GB's defense, I'm sure he wouldn't say that if it wasn't true especially since I'm sure he's talked with Embree about it.
I remember thinking some of those guys would be studs. I was especially excited to get Chris Hollis (a LB from Aurora Hinkley) and Blake Mackey (6'3" WR with 4.4 speed). On paper that was a solid class. Just didn't work out that way. The 2008 class was the same.
Right. I was thinking the same thing. Mackey looked like a star, and it didn't hurt getting his bro to transfer from UCLA(I think). At least JJ turned out to be a star.
Part of what most people see as "admin support" is really negotiated through conference alignments.
When we were a member of the Big 8 Conference, we were allowed partial-qualifiers through a program Mac had setup that actually worked out really well to graduate student athletes. Nebraska did the same thing.
When we joined the Big 12, that program was cut as part of the conference agreement to not allow those programs.
So, while it is easy to say that CU football under Coach Mac and Gordon Gee had "full support" from the admin, it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison about what the current admin CAN support, even if they wanted to.
The bottom line is that our other Big 12 rivals, and now, our Pac-12 rivals all play under basically the same rules in that regard. There are other things that separate us, like the transfer of JuCo credits, lack of a P.E. degree path, etc. But as a fanbase we tend to mock schools like Okie State, K(Juco)-State, etc for their allowance of poor academic options just for athletes. So which do you want, you can't have both?
How about we do what Cal does? Marshawn lynch couldn't even spell his first name.
he did coach players up though - for sub par talent we sure won some BIG games
This is the reason. Great, concise post, brother.
i'd be willing to bet the admin support for athletics is higher now than when Eddie Crowder finished #3 in the nation.
Separate names with a comma.