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!

Colorado's top 25 finishes

Unleash Hell

Well-Known Member
AP

1937 17
1956 20
1961 7
1969 16
1971 3
1972 16
1975 16
1976 16
1989 4
1990 1
1991 20
1992 13
1993 16
1994 3
1995 5
1996 8
2001 9
2002 20

Our third longest drought!:cry:
 
I hear ya. Last time ranked was Nov 2005 (7-2), before the baaaad loss to ISU, and the blowouts to NU and Texas.

That period between 89-97 (143 straight polls), ranks #10 all time.

I think it's reasonable with a real coach, to start cracking the top 25 again, and build momentum from there (ah, the optimist in me....)
 
I see CU in a similar light as I do Arkansas. Should be a perennial Top 25 program, every 3 years or so challenge for a conference title, and every 5-7 years have a shot at a national title. Just being realistic, neither program has the built in advantages of a UT, USC, Florida, LSU, etc. But, if both programs are performing up to their potential, they can both meet the expectations I stated above.
 
5-7 years for the MNC seems a bit lofty. I just don't see CU being able to reload year in and year out like UT, OSU and the real FB schools.
 
I think making a run at a MNC once every ten years or so should be the norm. I think we should always be part of the discussion for a conference championship, winning one every 4-5 years. I honestly don't think that's out of the question. It's not top tier elite status, but just a notch below, which is where I think we should be.
 
I think making a run at a MNC once every ten years or so should be the norm. I think we should always be part of the discussion for a conference championship, winning one every 4-5 years. I honestly don't think that's out of the question. It's not top tier elite status, but just a notch below, which is where I think we should be.

I want to be better than that, but for now it is a completely realistic goal that I would love to accomplish. From there, I would definitely want to move to top tier elite status rather than just hanging at that.
 
I want to be better than that, but for now it is a completely realistic goal that I would love to accomplish. From there, I would definitely want to move to top tier elite status rather than just hanging at that.

To move into that top tier would require resources we simply don't have. In fact, very few schools do. Probably 10-12 schools are in that category. It requires an unwavering commitment from the administration. It requires gobs of money. It requires fan support sufficient to regularly fill 100K+ stadiums, regardless of opponent. We're lucky in that the conference we're going to only has one such school - USC - and it's on probation. There's nothing standing in our way of being very successful in the Pac 12. Nothing, I should say, but ourselves.
 
To move into that top tier would require resources we simply don't have. In fact, very few schools do. Probably 10-12 schools are in that category. It requires an unwavering commitment from the administration. It requires gobs of money. It requires fan support sufficient to regularly fill 100K+ stadiums, regardless of opponent. We're lucky in that the conference we're going to only has one such school - USC - and it's on probation. There's nothing standing in our way of being very successful in the Pac 12. Nothing, I should say, but ourselves.

Dan Hawkins is standing in our way, but hopefully that changes soon!
 
That's a good comparison. I would also throw us in a grouping with: Washington, Texas A&M, Iowa, Wisconsin, UCLA, Auburn, West Virginia.

I see CU in a similar light as I do Arkansas. Should be a perennial Top 25 program, every 3 years or so challenge for a conference title, and every 5-7 years have a shot at a national title. Just being realistic, neither program has the built in advantages of a UT, USC, Florida, LSU, etc. But, if both programs are performing up to their potential, they can both meet the expectations I stated above.
 
That's a good comparison. I would also throw us in a grouping with: Washington, Texas A&M, Iowa, Wisconsin, UCLA, Auburn, West Virginia.

I wouldn't put us in the same category as Auburn or A&M as far as booster or fan support, they certainly have more of those resources. We may be compare favorably to those 2 programs as far as on-field success over the past 30 years or so, but not in the 2 aforementioned categories. Hell, Wisconsin and Iowa have us beat in those areas too.
 
I wouldn't put us in the same category as Auburn or A&M as far as booster or fan support, they certainly have more of those resources. We may be compare favorably to those 2 programs as far as on-field success over the past 30 years or so, but not in the 2 aforementioned categories. Hell, Wisconsin and Iowa have us beat in those areas too.

It'll be interesting to see how the Pac-10 move might change that.
 
To move into that top tier would require resources we simply don't have. In fact, very few schools do. Probably 10-12 schools are in that category. It requires an unwavering commitment from the administration. It requires gobs of money. It requires fan support sufficient to regularly fill 100K+ stadiums, regardless of opponent. We're lucky in that the conference we're going to only has one such school - USC - and it's on probation. There's nothing standing in our way of being very successful in the Pac 12. Nothing, I should say, but ourselves.

It may take until after you're dead, but we can get there.
 
It may take until after you're dead, but we can get there.

I'd never say never. However, the teams that are there (Texas, Michigan, ND, Alabama, etc) have been at this for years. Generations of people have grown up as fans & supporters of those programs. We're a long, long way from that. It's not impossible, just very, very improbable. Being in that second tier of college football is not a bad thing. Schools like Wisconsin, UCLA, Oregon, Miami, etc. do very well there. Right now, we're not even in that second tier, but it's where we should be. In fact, I'm not sure we're even in the third tier.
 
Back
Top