Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by G0Buffs, Nov 21, 2012.
Do you think that the main reason why Bohn may keep Embree is to save his own job for another year?
Plenty of Ad's have hired three football coaches, even at schools that take football seriously like Texas and Alabama. Retaining JE after abject failure is far more likely to cost Bohn his job than firing him.
There have been lots of AD's who have hired three coaches.
The current AD at UCLA hired/fired three coaches. AD at Alabama too. UT's AD has also hired/fired 3 coaches.
Not all that uncommon, really.
What about AD"s whose first two hires failed miserably?
Bohn's hire of Squawkins looked like a good move at the time. Buffs4Life forced his hand on Embree. I'd rather have Bohn get to make a third hire, then Bohn keep Embree for another year.
And whether you like or dislike Bohn, the success of the MBB team has probably bought him some time and he will hire Embrees replacement regardless when it happens.
Talk about a Hobson's choice....
So B4L forced MB hand? I can recall Mike turning down Coach Mac as our next HC. IIRC Mac originally wanted the HC job until MB said no.
I know Mac played a big part in all of this mess, but to assume that MB was powerless in all of this is a joke.
No - Bohn knows his job is on the line here, big time. He's in a fight with the decision makers.
Why do people keep insisting Bzdelic was a bad hire? He was a name coach that CU had no business being able to attract, recruiting some very talented players that helped set the table for Boyle, and his contract got the practice facility built. He was a great hire IMO, the fact that he bailed quickly was not Bohn's fault.
Bohn tried to do the right thing with Hawkins. It was considered a great hire by most at the time. One thing many will argue is that Bohn did not do enough homework on what made BSU so good and that if he would have, he would have realized Petersen was the brains behind the team.
Do any of you have more insight into that?
Sounds like Bohn was kind of rendered as a less substantial decision maker in the Embree hire. Doesn't sound like he should get the brunt of the blame on that one.
I have criticized Bohn heavily in the past but any criticism of his two worst hires needs to be heavily-caveated. Hawkins was an ex-ante great hire and Embree doesn't appear to be his decision.
At Idaho, man. For Idaho that was a coup. He was a BCS OC.
Here's the funny thing with Cable in the coaching pecking order. Embree, Bieniemy and Cable were at UCLA in 2004 and 2005. Cable got the OC job over them. Cable went on from there to be hired as an NFL HC (dysfunctional Raiders, but still an NFL HC job).
As much of a joke as we may make of Cable, his resume even before Idaho far outpaces what Embree and Bieniemy have.
The Hawkins hire was totally defendable. It just didn't work out. Happens all the time.
The Hawkins extension was one of the worst decisions I have ever seen in the coaching biz.
The JE hire is very hard to defend. VERY hard to defend.
Wasn't Tom Cable an Idaho alum?
If you view coaching searches as coronations, then yes, Bohn's hire of Hawkins is beyond reproach.
That argument falls apart if you examine the Tad Boyle hire though.
Yep. Only reason they were able to get him.
My problem with the Hawkins hire was not in the conclusion, it was the process of using the Chuck Neinas agency to do all screening and to put up its selection, which got rubber-stamped. I don't know how involved Bohn was in the process. Maybe he just laid out criteria. Maybe he was ruling out candidates along the way while also suggesting that Neinas contact certain coach agents to feel others out. I don't know.
But the consultant route certainly failed for Bohn.
Obviously I do not know for sure, but it always seemed like Nik's scenario played out. Bohn had just made a pretty gutsy move in firing Barnett, but then turned around and made an extremely "safe" hire. Boyle was far from the safe pick.
In my mind Bohn's greatest failing as an AD has been his inability to convince University leadership of the relative importance of his own department within the overall University. He has failed to convince his superiors that a strong athletic department, and its football team in particular, will benefit the university financially, culturally, and from a brand perspective. That's an incredibly hard nut to crack when your president is a 74 year old oil man who is entirely preoccupied with building a medical campus, and a chancellor for whom winning comes in a distant second to avoiding scandal, but it's absolutely critical if we ever want to see any kind of sustained success.
It really struck me in the announcement of Tedford's firing the comment from their AD about how their commitment to strive for excellence in every facet of the University includes their athletic programs. They get it and I don't think we have that same commitment at CU and I do put a lot of that on Bohn.
How many schools have a strong athletic dept led by football? How do you define "strong"?
I may not understand what you're asking, but I would venture that most schools with a strong athletic department have a strong football program, with a few exceptions who generally have elite men's basketball programs (duke, Kentucky, etc.). I would turn it around and ask you how many schools with strong athletic departments do it in spite of a weak football program?
i define strong as a program that competes for conference championships, is relevant within it's region, is financially stable, has a loyal and enthusiastic fan base, and is provided the resources it needs to remain competitive with its peers.
With very few exceptions, if a university chooses to compete in D1 football then football will determine the health of the athletic department.
You can be a Gonzaga, Georgetown or Villanova without D1A football fairly successfully. Even Denver University is a good model for that. But if you play D1A, it's incredibly rare that basketball can carry donations and revenue. Hell, that won't even work at Louisville and they're a Top 10 all-time program in a basketball-crazy state.
I'm just not sold on the idea that great football makes for a great school. I look at a lot of the great football programs and I see a lot of lower tier schools. Sure, you've got some higher tier schools in the mix but I'm not sure I see a strong correlation. Stanford was total crap for countless years until JH. During that time of garbage football, Stanford grew into the best school in the world. You can point to top schools with bottom football and you can point to top schools with top football.
I never said great football makes a great school, what I said was that a strong football program (an by extension a strong AD) can be a valuable asset to a University. It is an incredible marketing tool, is arguably the most effective way of keeping alums engaged in the school, and helps promote the CU brand.
If you put it that way, then I agree 100%.
I've seen others present it like it's an essential.
There's a economic study that good football leads to better academics. Good football means good exposure. Good exposure means more applications. More applications mean better students get in. Good students getting in raises academics. Teenagers like to party. Good football makes for good partying. Using Stanford is a horrible example but that seems pretty par for the course with you.
Separate names with a comma.