Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by FLounder, Dec 16, 2013.
Now why couldn't CU do this...
Firing a coach after 5 years?
we did that.
also fired one after 2 years.
Mack Brown to Army
Who is the Bobby Ross clone this time around?
More so the letter. It's nice to see a school take responsibility for a downtrodden football program.
12 in a row? Holy crap....
At least it wasn't 37.
Stupid letter in my opinion. That's a lot of big talk for a program that sucks (in a relative sense). He's talking about expecting unqualified excellence in football, but they are not even close and prob will never be, or should be, for obvious reasons.
Navy is their measuring stick, which makes sense since they operate with similar limitations.
Our athletics programs exist for several reasons, but one of them is to represent our schools. It's reasonable to expect excellence.
Is Army going to the AAC or is that Navy?
Hawkins to Army?
This would be a hilariously bad fit!
if he's just talking about Navy, then it's fine, but that letter is full of big talk, throwing around the excellence word....army is on the cusp of not being legit division one...they annually are in the bottom 20%, losing to teams like eastern kentucky...people can expect whatever they like, but reality is reality....last year they lost 20-3 to stony brook....you just look silly talking about greatness like that when you lost 20-3 to stony brook....that's just my opinion
So, the letter would be more appropriately worded, "In order to achieve our reasonable objectives based on certain realities, which we all recognize..."?
OP fail. can thread title be turned into sarcasm font?
All that stuff from the Army and not one reference to reflective belts?
You can't separate "excellence" from glow belts. It's one and the same.
Well, in military terms that would be called situational awareness....and that letter ain't got none, in my opinion.
Maybe that's the real problem with the Army football program - lack of glow belts. Has anybody brought this up? It might be important.
I just read the letter again, and I'm not sure the specific language that you find so objectionable. The Army expects to have a "winning program" and believes that giving it their best is insufficient, and that "Victory" is the expectation.
None of that sounds unreasonable, and additionally seems in line with the institutional values.
What am I missing?
Jesus Christ, I can't believe I'm defending the Army.
The tone, but specifically the last paragraph...sort of unqualified focus on winning....losing not acceptable, etc. Is he talking about just the Navy game or all games? Also, earlier he's talking about the "best" leaders on the field. The tone seems incongruent with what they are and have been and what they are realistically limited to be on the football field. "We will accept nothing short of excellence and the best...losing is not an option, but stony brook kicked our asses...along with eastern kentucky."
Anyway, i'm beating a dead horse.
How is this different, for instance, than Bevo's insistence on reaching out to coaches they can't have? At some point, you have to maintain high expectations and pursue them, even to the point of failure. But you don't sacrifice those goals.
That's a good point. I think a lot about expectations in general and expectations for myself, specifically. More art than science i guess. Set 'em too high and they serve as demotivator. Set 'em too low and you're leaving money on the table, so to speak.
Please measure your response carefully, Orr - I don't want to have to neg rep you, but I will if you continue to defend the army in this context.
Separate names with a comma.