CU fans should embrace the stability of Mike MacIntyre

[Buffnik]

So what are we building to for 2016/2017? Just trying to get an idea of what fans think the goals of this program are going forward.

A period of regular bowl appearances with the opportunity to have a bigger season if we end up with a dynamic QB.

 

[Duff Man]

No you're not. You're just being snarky.

Our only goal since Embree left should be to not suck. We achieved that goal. We don't suck. It took us three years to reach "not suck" level. I honestly don't know how long it will take to get to "win more than we lose" level. A lot will depend on how much our conference foes improve. They're still ahead of us.

Actually not being snarky. As I said earlier in the thread, aren't all the arguments about retaining MacIntyre still going to be there next season if we go 5-7 (purely as an example)? Especially if he makes some big changes to the coaching staff?

 

[DBT]

Actually not being snarky. As I said earlier in the thread, aren't all the arguments about retaining MacIntyre still going to be there next season if we go 5-7 (purely as an example)? Especially if he makes some big changes to the coaching staff?

Lighten up old boy. I think Sacky was yanking your chain. This board is getting so damned serious!

 

[Idot Buff]

No you're not. You're just being snarky.

Our only goal since Embree left should be to not suck. We achieved that goal. We don't suck. It took us three years to reach "not suck" level. I honestly don't know how long it will take to get to "win more than we lose" level. A lot will depend on how much our conference foes improve. They're still ahead of us.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "not suck." I think we still suck, certainly relative to our past. If your definition of "suck" is the Embree era, then I suppose you are correct.

 

[Buffnik]

I suppose it depends on your definition of "not suck." I think we still suck, certainly relative to our past. If your definition of "suck" is the Embree era, then I suppose you are correct.

Sucking a little bit is better than getting bukkakeed, no?

 

[Deleted member 807]

So what are we building to for 2016/2017? Just trying to get an idea of what fans think the goals of this program are going forward.

Fans are all over the place.

Non-military Govt workers, teachers, old sentimental types, people with beloved contacts inside the Champions Center, and fans from opposing teams want to give Mike Mac another year or two.

Small business owners, Corporate workers, and people with roots in the military are waiting for a signature win or are already ready to move forward on the condition that RG can actually land someone who is an upgrade.

Players and students; who knows.

Ultimately it's not the fans who need to take charge. These decisions have to come from people who are paid to be responsible for CU's brand and financial performance.

 

[DBT]

When It dawned on me what Mac has been going through in his personal life, the tears after the OSU win are a bit more understandable. He has a lot of weight on his shoulders right now, as many of us can relate to. I'm really pulling for him.

 

[sackman]

Actually not being snarky. As I said earlier in the thread, aren't all the arguments about retaining MacIntyre still going to be there next season if we go 5-7 (purely as an example)? Especially if he makes some big changes to the coaching staff?

They might be. So what if they are? If they're reasonable arguments, they're reasonable arguments. The PAC 12 isn't getting worse.

CU went through a systematic dismantling of the football program over a ten year period. You don't just bounce back from that in a conference like the PAC 12. You can do it in other conferences, but not here. In that regard, we would have been better off staying in the Big 12. Our path to respectability would be much shorter there. We are where we are, though. And long term, I still like this situation. I think we are better off staying the course as opposed to changing coaches until it's obvious that we are regressing. Only a fool would argue we are regressing. The problem is that we aren't improving fast enough. Well, that sucks, but we made this bed, we need to sleep in it.

 

[Idot Buff]

Sucking a little bit is better than getting bukkakeed, no?

Thanks a lot....a Google image search of that word is disgusting.

 

[sackman]

I suppose it depends on your definition of "not suck." I think we still suck, certainly relative to our past. If your definition of "suck" is the Embree era, then I suppose you are correct.

I look at a conference like the Big 10 or Big 12 and I'm convinced we would win 8-9 games in either of those conferences. Yes, we have issues, but the biggest among them is the level of competition we have to face every week.

 

[Duff Man]

They might be. So what if they are? If they're reasonable arguments, they're reasonable arguments. The PAC 12 isn't getting worse.

CU went through a systematic dismantling of the football program over a ten year period. You don't just bounce back from that in a conference like the PAC 12. You can do it in other conferences, but not here. In that regard, we would have been better off staying in the Big 12. Our path to respectability would be much shorter there. We are where we are, though. And long term, I still like this situation. I think we are better off staying the course as opposed to changing coaches until it's obvious that we are regressing. Only a fool would argue we are regressing. The problem is that we aren't improving fast enough. Well, that sucks, but we made this bed, we need to sleep in it.

More succinctly, when does it become less about what the program was like when MacIntyre took over and more about whether he is meeting certain goals himself? Because it seems like that tipping point is probably year four, isn't it?

 

[SINKRATZ]

I look at a conference like the Big 10 or Big 12 and I'm convinced we would win 8-9 games in either of those conferences. Yes, we have issues, but the biggest among them is the level of competition we have to face every week.

Come on.

 

[Buffnik]

I look at a conference like the Big 10 or Big 12 and I'm convinced we would win 8-9 games in either of those conferences. Yes, we have issues, but the biggest among them is the level of competition we have to face every week.

We'd be a bowl team, most likely. Certainly in the ACC we would be.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Lighten up old boy. I think Sacky was yanking your chain. This board is getting so damned serious!

Wainaminit. You are on a sweat golf outing in Northern California when you could be obsessing about this stuff.

 

[SlatsGrobnik]

Totally agree with this article. I've been a long-time, almost daily reader of AllBuffs, but it hasn't been until recently I've started posting (which might not a great thing for most of you). I mention this only because the primary motive for my change is that I feel like we actually have a good head coach (and other coaches and AD) that know how to recruit both HS and JC, hit the camp circuit, and evaluate talent... and recruiting is ultimately the name of the game. Are we getting all the talent we need to yet? No. Do I worry that not enough O and D-line recruits are signing up? You bet. However, just watching the recruiting videos of some of the guys we were bringing on board in the hawk/embree days versus the MikeMac era is a stark contrast. Even though we're not where we want to be and likely won't be for a few more years, we gotta give Mac a long leash to properly build this, IMO (and I think we got lucky that Mac fell in our lap). I shudder to admit that we had fallen to a D2-level organization on many fronts and that simply takes time to rebuild. For the first time in a LONG time, there's excitement being generated for me and I gotta believe more good fans will start coming out of the woodwork if we keep things moving in the right direction.

 

[Liver]

for me, the goals for the program have been consistent for many, many years:

1. winning record every year.
2. bowl appearances every year.
3. win more bowl games than you lose.
4. consistently recruit in the top 25, and sometimes better.
5. compete for conference championships regularly, but not necessarily every year.
6. play up to the competition when facing ranked opponents.
7. be ranked in the top 25 at least 75% of the time.
8. occasionally, break out and be in the mix for the national championship
9. have players win individual awards and honors.
10. stay out of major trouble and do things as honorably as circumstances permit.

these goals were in my mind when Mac went on his epic run and he clearly exceeded them. they were on my mind with skippy and he usually exceeded them. they were on my mind with gb who sometimes exceeded them. since then, we've not come close.

i don't agree that we should stop thinking in these terms. either we play to win or we don't. i get that, incrementally, given how ****ty we've been, we needed to crawl before we walk, but i am not ok with not taking the next step on a timeline that isn't measure in half-decades.

 

[sackman]

Come on.

A steady diet of Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland and yes, nebraska would pretty well damn guarantee us 8-9 wins. Sure, we'd have to deal with Michigan St. Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan, but the rest of that conference is looking up at mediocre.

In the B12, a steady diet of KU, KSU, ISU and yes, Texas would pretty well damn guarantee us at least 6 wins, probably 7 or 8.

 

[rosstr]

for me, the goals for the program have been consistent for many, many years:

1. winning record every year.
2. bowl appearances every year.
3. win more bowl games than you lose.
4. consistently recruit in the top 25, and sometimes better.
5. compete for conference championships regularly, but not necessarily every year.
6. play up to the competition when facing ranked opponents.
7. be ranked in the top 25 at least 75% of the time.
8. occasionally, break out and be in the mix for the national championship
9. have players win individual awards and honors.
10. stay out of major trouble and do things as honorably as circumstances permit.

these goals were in my mind when Mac went on his epic run and he clearly exceeded them. they were on my mind with skippy and he usually exceeded them. they were on my mind with gb who sometimes exceeded them. since then, we've not come close.

i don't agree that we should stop thinking in these terms. either we play to win or we don't. i get that, incrementally, given how ****ty we've been, we needed to crawl before we walk, but i am not ok with not taking the next step on a timeline that isn't measure in half-decades.

The elusive triple negative!

 

[sackman]

for me, the goals for the program have been consistent for many, many years:

1. winning record every year.
2. bowl appearances every year.
3. win more bowl games than you lose.
4. consistently recruit in the top 25, and sometimes better.
5. compete for conference championships regularly, but not necessarily every year.
6. play up to the competition when facing ranked opponents.
7. be ranked in the top 25 at least 75% of the time.
8. occasionally, break out and be in the mix for the national championship
9. have players win individual awards and honors.
10. stay out of major trouble and do things as honorably as circumstances permit.

these goals were in my mind when Mac went on his epic run and he clearly exceeded them. they were on my mind with skippy and he usually exceeded them. they were on my mind with gb who sometimes exceeded them. since then, we've not come close.

i don't agree that we should stop thinking in these terms. either we play to win or we don't. i get that, incrementally, given how ****ty we've been, we needed to crawl before we walk, but i am not ok with not taking the next step on a timeline that isn't measure in half-decades.

I agree with your metrics. I just think that because of what we've done to ourselves, we are still a long way away from being at a point where those goals are realistic. It's not just how bad we've been. It's not just how much we have allowed ourselves to fall off the face of the cliff. It's the conference we've chosen to associate ourselves with. Only the SEC would have made it harder for us to climb back to respectability.

In short, we need a lot of things to happen for us to be in a spot where your goals are realistic. Some of those things are completely out of our control - namely needing a few members of the conference to significantly regress.

 

[lawdogg]

So what are we building to for 2016/2017? Just trying to get an idea of what fans think the goals of this program are going forward.

Fair question. It got me thinking, what would be the expectations for a new head coach in the 2016/2017 seasons? Are we thinking that a new (presumably better) head coach comes in and wins 6-7 games out the chute next year, 9-10 games the following season? Are we thinking it would take a few years for the new coach to build the program, but that he would have a higher ceiling than HCMM? What would the goals for the program be assuming a change is made?

 

[SINKRATZ]

A steady diet of Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland and yes, ****braska would pretty well damn guarantee us 8-9 wins. Sure, we'd have to deal with Michigan St. Ohio State, Wisconsin and Michigan, but the rest of that conference is looking up at mediocre.

In the B12, a steady diet of KU, KSU, ISU and yes, Texas would pretty well damn guarantee us at least 6 wins, probably 7 or 8.

So if our schedule happened to draw all the worst teams in conference? Of all the teams you mentioned, only Kansas and Purdue seem like almost sure wins, maybe Rutgers. Not sure we'd be favored in any others. 8-9 wins is a huge stretch IMO. The Pac 12 is a tough conference, but that is not the primary reason we are struggling - we're still really far behind talent-wise.

 

[fatbuff]

Mac recognized the need and had the guts to make a change at DC. Let's hope he continues to try to improve the coaching staff. If he sits pat this off season, that will be a big red flag to me.

Nienas is still employed by CU. What color is that flag?

 

[Hugegroove]

Knudson is a self serving hack who happens to be the journalistic twin brother of Kizla.
However, IMO Mac deserves another year. And had the Buffs won the game at uCLA yesterday, what would these comments look like today?
Yes, yesterdays loss was a bitter pill to swallow but as I watched the game it was Sefo's fault, not Mac's.

 

[aik]

Fair question. It got me thinking, what would be the expectations for a new head coach in the 2016/2017 seasons? Are we thinking that a new (presumably better) head coach comes in and wins 6-7 games out the chute next year, 9-10 games the following season? Are we thinking it would take a few years for the new coach to build the program, but that he would have a higher ceiling than HCMM? What would the goals for the program be assuming a change is made?

Depending on how patient these programs are, there are going to be plenty of good coaches who are going to get fired either this season or next. If there is enough talent currently on the CU roster to win more games than they currently have, and I believe there is, then it should be easier for the right coach who has done things at this level before to come in and recruit based on name value right away and coach us to some bowl games very soon. I'm firmly against firing MacIntyre this year but there needs to be a near-zero tolerance for flubbing games like Hawaii next year. I think next year if he doesn't get it done there will be a nice pool of candidates who can come in and restart that momentum and get us back where we need to be with our roster steadily upgraded.

 

[lvbuff]

How has nebraska's coaching philosophy worked? Fired perennial 9-3 Solich. Been changing every 3-4 years since. They are a lame team now.

Continuity is generally a good thing. Folks forget how down CU was. A good tell was Hawkins first year. Barely enough o linemen to put on the field.

 

[Deleted member 807]

How has ****braska's coaching philosophy worked? Fired perennial 9-3 Solich. Been changing every 3-4 years since. They are a lame team now.

Continuity is generally a good thing. Folks forget how down CU was. A good tell was Hawkins first year. Barely enough o linemen to put on the field.

The "Nebraska coaching philosophy" spin is cute. But there are flaws in applying this catchy phrase into the discussion about CU's situation.

The opposite of "Nebraska coaching philosophy" is the "Iowa Stare coaching philosophy", where continuity in the head coach position has resulted in mediocrity.

HC Dan McCarney: 56-85
3-8
2-9
1-10
3-8
4-7
9-3
7-5
7-7
2-10
7-5
7-5
4-8

Or how about ISU current coach Paul Rhodes
7-6
5-7
6-7
6-7
3-9
2-10
3-5 (mid season)

The reality is that each situation is unique. Nebraska has been trying to clone Tom Osborne. His successors have run into the buzz saw of unrealistic Husker expectations. The Huskers can't guarantee stability because it takes a certain type of person to actually want to invest a long stretch of their lives in stinkin' Lincoln and stroke Nebraska egos year after year. The whole point of life in Nebraska is to GTFO.

Let's revisit this "Nebraska philosophy" concept after MacInthye delivers a 9-3 record.

And let's consider Iowa State's record when making claims about the merits of continuity.

There are dozens of other examples in college football that can be used to make the case to retain or move on from MacIntyre.

 

[lawdogg]

So basically, sometimes cutting bait quickly works, and sometimes it's better to be patient? Got it.

 

[Duff Man]

If you make a change now, it is mostly so the new guy can sign a good class in 2017.

 

[GoDonkeys]

BS. He coached a barely over HS team in SJSU to a turnaround. His offense is fricking HS people. Go watch Fairview one night and see for yourself. He doesnt recruit well enough to compete in Pac 12. And he definitely is out of his league in regards to coaching. Wake up people, any one of us could have improved the team after Embree!!! Keep drinking this KoolAid!!!!

 

[Duff Man]

You embraced the troll role finally.