Just going to leave this here...

[Deleted member 807]

CSU
Cal
Hawaii
Georgia
Missouri
Baylor
TT
Oklahoma
Kansas
Iowa St.
Kansas St.
Nebraska

If we go 6-6, let's say beating CSU, Hawaii, Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa St., and Kansas State. That means we won ZERO road games. Regardless of score, that's not good enough. He should be fired. If we go 6-6 with one win on the road, then we still only won 1 road game and that's not enough and we lost to an average team at home. Fired. 6-6 with two road wins, then we lost two home games we shouldn't have lost. Fired. I don't see any 6-6 situation where the quality of wins/losses still constitutes keeping Hawkins. Do you?

Beating CSU, OU and aNUs always counts for something, and might make up for a 6-6. Some revenge in Mizzou would be a big step forward. Those would make four quality road wins that would go a long way to sooth any home loses to ISU, KSU or Baylor.

 

[Duff Man]

Umm. OK. I guess. I mean, what is the argument here. Exactly?

I think he's saying 6-6 is not acceptable under any circumstances, and I agree. 6-6 is not going to turn recruiting around, it is not going to energize the fanbase, and quite frankly is not good enough in Year 5. Woelk was trying to make the argument that you have to look beyond the numbers and he introduced the 6-6 record. Not buying it under any circumstances.

 

[Ruckus]

Beating CSU, OU and aNUs always counts for something, and might make up for a 6-6. Some revenge in Mizzou would be a big step forward. Those would make four quality road wins that would go a long way to sooth any home loses to ISU, KSU or Baylor.

If we won against OU, Mizzou, and kNU this year, then we better have at least 8 wins total.

Umm. OK. I guess. I mean, what is the argument here. Exactly?

I think he's saying 6-6 is not acceptable under any circumstances, and I agree. 6-6 is not going to turn recruiting around, it is not going to energize the fanbase, and quite frankly is not good enough in Year 5. Woelk was trying to make the argument that you have to look beyond the numbers and he introduced the 6-6 record. Not buying it under any circumstances.

This.

 

[DBT]

I think he's saying 6-6 is not acceptable under any circumstances, and I agree. 6-6 is not going to turn recruiting around, it is not going to energize the fanbase, and quite frankly is not good enough in Year 5. Woelk was trying to make the argument that you have to look beyond the numbers and he introduced the 6-6 record. Not buying it under any circumstances.

Ah. Ok. Thanks. But I think his point was that if Marolt had judged Mac strictly on his record at the time, he would have fired Mac. But he judged Mac by more than just record. In the same vein, Hawkins has to be judged on more than just record. In doing so, Hawkins may be judged more harshly. So, I don't see why everyone is ripping Woelk so much. You could argue that Woelk is saying that even if Hawk goes, say, 7-5 or 8-4, he should also be judged on coaching staff, recruiting, types of wins, etc. You guys used to praise Neill when "The Scandal" was going on. Now, when you "perceive" that he is defending Hawkins, he is a shill for Bohn.

You have become the "burn them at the stake" crowd that you hated during "The Scandal." Anyone who is even perceived as defending Hawkins is cast into the fire. Sad. We used to be the good guys.

 

[Ruckus]

But when Mac was kept around after an average to poor first 5 years no one knew he was going to end up being our best coach ever and give us a NC and some other very good teams. It was a risk that could have ruined us, but ended up working out. The odds of that happening can't be good. To think that we'll have the same results with Hawkins is taking something that happened over 20 years ago way too much into account. I agree other things besides W/L should be taken into account, but that is what we did when we extended his contract and that risk turned out ****ty. So we need to take that very recent past mistake into account as well.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

You have become the "burn them at the stake" crowd that you hated during "The Scandal." Anyone who is even perceived as defending Hawkins is cast into the fire. Sad. We used to be the good guys.

this is the saddest and most true statement possibly ever uttered on this site

 

[Buffnik]

We need momentum heading into the Pac-12. That means that Hawk either needs to show that his program has turned the corner... or it means that we need to have hired a national headline making coach to replace him. The timing is too important with this unprecedented opportunity to mobilize alumni and create new fans. We cannot afford to show that we accept mediocrity.

 

[DBT]

Don't get me wrong. Hawkins is no Mac. But who is? We CU fans need to put that to rest. It'd be like comparing Obama, Bush, etc. to Jefferson, :lol:

 

[buffsyko]

Ah. Ok. Thanks. But I think his point was that if Marolt had judged Mac strictly on his record at the time, he would have fired Mac. But he judged Mac by more than just record. In the same vein, Hawkins has to be judged on more than just record. In doing so, Hawkins may be judged more harshly. So, I don't see why everyone is ripping Woelk so much. You could argue that Woelk is saying that even if Hawk goes, say, 7-5 or 8-4, he should also be judged on coaching staff, recruiting, types of wins, etc. You guys used to praise Neill when "The Scandal" was going on. Now, when you "perceive" that he is defending Hawkins, he is a shill for Bohn.

You have become the "burn them at the stake" crowd that you hated during "The Scandal." Anyone who is even perceived as defending Hawkins is cast into the fire. Sad. We used to be the good guys.

Barnett at least won, hawk has made cu a joke. BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sackman]

I don't know why this keeps getting brought up, but Mac won SEVEN games in his FOURTH year. Hawk won THREE games in his FOURTH year. Why do I have to keep repeating this, like it's some kind of secret that nobody wants to acknowledge?

 

[leftybuff]

I don't know why this keeps getting brought up, but Mac won SEVEN games in his FOURTH year. Hawk won THREE games in his FOURTH year. Why do I have to keep repeating this, like it's some kind of secret that nobody wants to acknowledge?

:congrats:Exactly. Mac showed progress. His teams got better and beter. The more Hawk puts his stamp on this program, the poorer the results get. No comparison.

 

[DBT]

Barnett at least won, hawk has made cu a joke. BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was and am a big GB fan. He was done in by issues beyond his control. As for Hawk, he has one remaining chance. He'd better be greatful that he does. I wasn't defending Hawkins. I was just analyzing Woelk's column.

 

[DBT]

I don't know why this keeps getting brought up, but Mac won SEVEN games in his FOURTH year. Hawk won THREE games in his FOURTH year. Why do I have to keep repeating this, like it's some kind of secret that nobody wants to acknowledge?

:congrats:Exactly. Mac showed progress. His teams got better and beter. The more Hawk puts his stamp on this program, the poorer the results get. No comparison.

I hope everyone doesn't think I, in any way, think Hawkins can hold Mac's jock strap. Mac was, is, and will always be The Man. I just think you guys were a little hard on Niell.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

I like how you guys loved Woelk during the scandal when he was one journalist who defended Barnett and the program and now that you PERCIEIVE that he's defending Hawkins, he is suddenly a shill for Mike Bohn. You guys just jumped to the conclusion that Woelk is arguing that if you compare Hawkins to McCartney that he will come out favorably. I don't think that was his intent.

Rip away.

I am going to side with DBT on this one. Woelk tends to defend the program and look for the silver lining in everything. He hasn't changed, we have in that we wnated him defending the program, and now we don't until Hawk is out.

 

[sackman]

I hope everyone doesn't think I, in any way, think Hawkins can hold Mac's jock strap. Mac was, is, and will always be The Man. I just think you guys were a little hard on Niell.

I'm only being hard on Neill because he makes a comparison between Hawk and Mac, but overlooks the obvious differences between the two. There are no valid comparisons to make. Mac came in to a situation that was burned to the ground. The entire athletic department was on life support. He lost big his first three years. He realized going into year four that he needed to make a radical change in order to save his job. He switched to the wishbone, an offense he had never run before, and installed a wide receiver into the QB position. It was a desperation move to WIN games, because that was the only thing that was going to save his job. Hawk has done exactly none of the things that Mac did in order to win games. He acts as though his job is safe regardless of on-field performance, which was evidenced by his request for an extension. Anybody who throws out comparisons between Hawk and Mac is going to get a rude reception from me, because the comparisons are completely bogus.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

There is no comparison between Mac and Hawk. But Hawk is a good guy who made a bad decision to bring his son to a big time college and put them both in a bad situation. Then, gets thin skinned about the whole deal. Plus football is emotion, and he tries to take it out of the game. I hope he wins big and proves us wrong, or gets sent packing and we can move on. Either way is fine with me; I would love for him to learn his lessons on nepotism and succeed. Have a hard time getting too excited about this season until I find out which it is.

 

[dyemeduke]

I'm only being hard on Neill because he makes a comparison between Hawk and Mac, but overlooks the obvious differences between the two. There are no valid comparisons to make. Mac came in to a situation that was burned to the ground. The entire athletic department was on life support. He lost big his first three years. He realized going into year four that he needed to make a radical change in order to save his job. He switched to the wishbone, an offense he had never run before, and installed a wide receiver into the QB position. It was a desperation move to WIN games, because that was the only thing that was going to save his job. Hawk has done exactly none of the things that Mac did in order to win games. He acts as though his job is safe regardless of on-field performance, which was evidenced by his request for an extension. Anybody who throws out comparisons between Hawk and Mac is going to get a rude reception from me, because the comparisons are completely bogus.

I agree - no comparison b/n Hawk and Mac and this article is ludricous. I do like Woelk, but this article makes some stretches, particularly with the coaching staff.

I like Kiesau, Cabral and Ambrose. However, we also have Riddle and Collins. Those two are coordinators, and they have not shown their worth. The coaching staff as a whole has disappointed over the last handful of years, and it's preposterous to state that this year's staff has the potential to be the best one in Hawk's tenure. Ambrose seems like a great coach in waiting, but you are not going to convince me that he at this point is better than what Brown was last year. Brown is well known as a top-DB coach, at any level. Prince is certainly an upgrade over Hawk, but is he a better WR coach than Kiesau was during his first few years here? Is Kiesau as an OC better than Helfrich? Unless I'm proven wrong this season, there is no way that Denver Johnson is better than Grimes. Hawk made some piss poor hires when he was hired (Riddle, Collins, Bandison, Pittman), and even got rid of one of the guys that Woelk mentions in his article - Hankwitz. 6 wins this season will not put Hawk on the same level as Mac...Hawk needs to win 8 this year in my opinion to show himself worthy of another year in my eyes.

 

[sackman]

Hawk needs to win 8 this year in my opinion to show himself worthy of another year in my eyes.

Yep. 8 wins. I don't care where they come from. Anything less and he should be sent to whatever zen prayer circle he came from.

 

[CUFan]

Even if Hawk wins this year we need to get rid of him. His track record is just too spotty with us. How can we be sure he will have continued success? Buffnik makes a good point. We need to build on the momentum of the positive developments that have happened lately. Hawk's history with us will never go away and he has become a joke in the entire college football world.

Coach Mac said it best in the DP today, "CU is a sleeping giant"! The sleeper must awaken. We need change.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

Maybe Coach Mac is invigorated at the thought of coaching against the west coast teams instead of the B12 teams. Plus, playing the games in what was his recruiting hotbed. The combination has to be a bit tantilizing to his competitive juices.

 

[leftybuff]

Even if Hawk wins this year we need to get rid of him. His track record is just too spotty with us. How can we be sure he will have continued success? Buffnik makes a good point. We need to build on the momentum of the positive developments that have happened lately. Hawk's history with us will never go away and he has become a joke in the entire college football world.

Coach Mac said it best in the DP today, "CU is a sleeping giant"! The sleeper must awaken. We need change.

I tend to agree, but if Hawk wins 8, I would not be calling for his firing. I might even be persuaded a one year extension should be given, with no additional buyout money being due. If, Hawk wins 8, which I seriously doubt will happen, the long view ought to be that he is coaching for his job every year for the next three years. If he turns in three solid seasons (i.e. 7-8 wins, competitive teams, bowl appearances and perhaps a bowl win and solid recruiting), then and only then do you look at a long term extension. Hawk has just dropped the ball on too many occasions for me to believe a solid season this year alone would be anything other than a fluke.

 

[sackman]

I understand the desire to fire Hawkins regardless of his record, but I have a difficult time firing somebody who wins 8 games. I think he's full of sh*t, but if he wins 8 games, then maybe he's not the one who's full of sh*t afterall.

 

[CUFan]

I understand the desire to fire Hawkins regardless of his record, but I have a difficult time firing somebody who wins 8 games. I think he's full of sh*t, but if he wins 8 games, then maybe he's not the one who's full of sh*t afterall.

I am not advocating firing if he wins 8 games. I am simply saying that if by some act of God he does, then I'm not ready to anoint him the savior of the program. Like lefty wrote, I will need to see sustained success with him before I can get the memory of his debacle out of my head.

I guess I was writing from where I feel today. I want something new. If he wins 8, then I'll tell you how I feel then. I'm pretty confident I won't be telling you though.

 

[sackman]

I don't have any expectations that this team will win 8 games. I just don't see it. In order for them to do that, they'd have to do something they've never been able to do under Hawkins, which is win on the road. The flip side to that is that if they do manage to win 8 games, they will have proven that they've made progress. You don't fire a coach just as he's turning the corner.*

*This is in no way indicating that I believe Hawk has turned any corner. I think he's a certified moron who couldn't coach his way out of a wet paper bag. But if he proves me wrong, he proves me wrong.

 

[CUFan]

I don't have any expectations that this team will win 8 games. I just don't see it. In order for them to do that, they'd have to do something they've never been able to do under Hawkins, which is win on the road. The flip side to that is that if they do manage to win 8 games, they will have proven that they've made progress. You don't fire a coach just as he's turning the corner.*

*This is in no way indicating that I believe Hawk has turned any corner. I think he's a certified moron who couldn't coach his way out of a wet paper bag. But if he proves me wrong, he proves me wrong.

I would love for him to prove us both wrong.

 

[BuffLuke80]

If we start winning 8,9,10 games a year, people will forget he sucked for awhile. All about w's fellas, more wins you get, the more money u make.

 

[Ruckus]

You know, if we won 8 games this year I'd be pretty pleasantly surprised. I still don't consider 8 wins a good season, but it sure is a hell of an improvement. My fear at that point, would be that we extend Hawkins for a few years. This fear comes because we are losing some seniors this year who are going to have a lot to do with our success rate and I'm afraid that next year Hawk will go back to believing the team is young and inexperienced and use that as an excuse for poor results. I think we can win 8 games this year, but I don't know if Hawk can sustain it.

 

[DBT]

Mac, in Kiszla's article, said going to the Pac will be a "bonanza" for CU. He also said, as he has always said over the years, that CU is a sleeping giant. If this thing with Hawkins ends in a big FAIL, I honestly would gert very excited to see Mac some back. Like he said, his mom is alive and kicking at the ripe old age of 100 and his dad lived to be 87. Hell, Mac could give us a good 10 years!

I, for one, do not believe for one second that "the game has passed him by."