Mike MacIntyre: Does He Make It Through 2016?

[buffaholic]

buffaholic getting the excuses rolling early I see.

Nope. I'm talking about all the yahoos who are ready for the next HC.

We are no longer able to show improvement and not show wins, it's mathematically impossible.
So the next logical step is we show progress in our record and we continue to show momentum in recruiting. Both have to happen.

That's not making excuses, it's being logical and objective.

 

[White_Rabbit]

sure it is

 

[NW Buff]

1. Lose by a lot
2. Lose by a little (<--You are here in year 3)
3. Win by a little
4. Win by a late

We were there in year 2.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

Nope. I'm talking about all the yahoos who are ready for the next HC.

We are no longer able to show improvement and not show wins, it's mathematically impossible.
So the next logical step is we show progress in our record and we continue to show momentum in recruiting. Both have to happen.

That's not making excuses, it's being logical and objective.

But a single win is not enough, I believeMAJORITY is simply stating this: If Mac can't get to a bowl, he is gone. ****, I don't want that to happen. I want to see this get turned around!

 

[buffaholic]

We were there in year 2.

Yeah you're right. It should read:

1. Lose by ridiculous amounts (first team pulled in first half)
2. Lose by a lot less, but not competitive
3. Lose by little, including games we should have won <- Here in year 3
4. Win by a little, show more improvement yet again
5. Win more, show more improvement yet again

 

[NW Buff]

Yeah you're right. It should read:

1. Lose by ridiculous amounts (first team pulled in first half)
2. Lose by a lot less, but not competitive
3. Lose by little, including games we should have won <- Here in year 3
4. Win by a little, show more improvement yet again
5. Win more, show more improvement yet again

I am basically with you about MacIntyre. I am willing to see this year played out before calling for his head but I disagree that there was any meaningful difference between year 2 and year 3.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

I am basically with you about MacIntyre. I am willing to see this year played out before calling for his head but I disagree that there was any meaningful difference between year 2 and year 3.

Every advanced stat I could find says we regressed in year 3.

 

[Darth Snow]

Every advanced stat I could find says we regressed in year 3.

on offense, yes. On defense, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[leftybuff]

Every advanced stat I could find says we regressed in year 3.

Two steps forward, one step back is still improvement.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

on offense, yes. On defense, you couldn't be more wrong.

I never said defense regressed. Over all team performance regressed.

 

[Darth Snow]

I never said defense regressed. Over all team performance regressed.

You said you were looking at advanced stats. Those tend to break things down by offense and defense as well as overall. What advanced stats were you looking at then?

 

[DBT]

I am not faulting him for not having this staff, but I look at McElwain, he knew he needed better coaches to compete at Florida and got them. MacIntyre did not seem to attempt this.

There's a slight difference in the two situations related to ability to hire, don't you think?

 

[89BUFF89]

RG will let MikMac go when bowl eligibility is no longer a possibility. So, MikMac makes it to game 10, most likely, unless CU drops trow v. CSU or Oregon St. Lose either or both and you can move the timetable up a week or two.

This, I can't see any other scenario realistically (if RG isn't giving him an extra year no matter what), but we may not get the official announcement until after the last game is over.

 

[DiggerBuffs]

There's a slight difference in the two situations related to ability to hire, don't you think?

Yes, but MacIntyre had the salaries available to get guys in here and instead he just brought over his staff and added Toby.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

You said you were looking at advanced stats. Those tend to break things down by offense and defense as well as overall. What advanced stats were you looking at then?

F/+ and S&P+. Yes they do break them down, but I just grabbed the overall ranking that's opponent adjusted.

2014: 83rd and 77th
2015: 94th and 98th

 

[Darth Snow]

F/+ and S&P+. Yes they do break them down, but I just grabbed the overall ranking that's opponent adjusted.

2014: 83rd and 77th
2015: 94th and 98th

man, really trended downward after Sefo got hurt. We were a step above 2014 until he went down.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

man, really trended downward after Sefo got hurt. We were a step above 2014 until he went down.

It trended downward from the first ****ing snap of that Hawaii game.

 

[buffaholic]

Here's probably the only metric that matters:

2014: CU won 2 games and score differential was -10.5 per game.
2015: CU won 4 games and score differential was -6.9 per game.
34% improvement (10% improvement in score differential in conference play).
I omitted the Nichols State game for obvious reasons, for comparison.

2015 replaced Cal and UW with Stanford and WSU. Everyone thought it may have gotten easier, but 2015 was tougher since the 2015 editions of Stanford and WSU were much better than the 2014 editions of Cal and UW. (Cal couldn't stop anyone and UW couldn't score in 2014).

We lost to USC by 3. In 2012, we lost by 44.
UCLA since we joined we've lost by 39, 28, 22, 3 (OT), 4 and that was in the Rose Bowl.

When I go back to SoCal, the same folks who used to laugh at me for being a Colorado fan now worry that we're coming up.

I know, he's being paid to win. Fire him!

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Here's probably the only metric that matters:

2014: CU won 2 games and score differential was -10.5 per game.
2015: CU won 4 games and score differential was -6.9 per game.
34% improvement (10% improvement in score differential in conference play).
I omitted the Nichols State game for obvious reasons, for comparison.

2015 replaced Cal and UW with Stanford and WSU. Everyone thought it may have gotten easier, but 2015 was tougher since the 2015 editions of Stanford and WSU were much better than the 2014 editions of Cal and UW. (Cal couldn't stop anyone and UW couldn't score in 2014).

We lost to USC by 3. In 2012, we lost by 44.
UCLA since we joined we've lost by 39, 28, 22, 3 (OT), 4 and that was in the Rose Bowl.

When I go back to SoCal, the same folks who used to laugh at me for being a Colorado fan now worry that we're coming up.

I know, he's being paid to win. Fire him!

It seems like you're really stretching to see last year in a good light. To just about everybody's eyeballs, last year was a regression. Yes, Sefo's injury was a large part of that, but it was a team that returned most it's talent and still regressed.

 

[White_Rabbit]

F/+ and S&P+. Yes they do break them down, but I just grabbed the overall ranking that's opponent adjusted.

2014: 83rd and 77th
2015: 94th and 98th

F/+ and S&P+ forgot to account for Embree sucktude divided by Mac awesomeness times cherry picked stats plus moral victories

 

[Big Jim]

For the win/loss absolutists: make the initial assumption that our team is equal in overall assessment to each team on a 12 game schedule; flip a coin for each game; repeat for 20, 12 game seasons. Examine these "season records" for meaning, credit and blame.

This exercise should temper your position and slow your reactionary tendencies.. but it won't.

Extra credit: do another 20 years but if every time CU flips a win, the other team gets a second flip for the win. Examine these "season records."

WTF?

 

[SINKRATZ]

Well I mean if your buddies in SoCal think we're improving, then what other evidence do we need?

That's a pretty detailed analysis of a s**t load of losing.

In 2014 we beat Hawaii, but in 2015 we lost to them. In 2014 we lost to Utah by 4, in 2015 we lost by 6. In 2014 we took UCLA (with a QB who holds the school record for total offense) to double overtime, but in 2015 we lost in regulation to a true freshman QB. See I can cherry pick stats to make a point too!

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

WTF?

Test A, CU is assumed equal to peers and competes evenly. Should result in a nearly 6-6 split win loss based on probability
Test B, CU is at a disadvantage. Peers have a better probability of winning. Should result in a much lower "win/loss" result.

Round about way of saying CU is bad, has been bad, and likely will still be bad. Winning is hard when you are bad.

 

[Buffs35]

It seems like you're really stretching to see last year in a good light. To just about everybody's eyeballs, last year was a regression. Yes, Sefo's injury was a large part of that, but it was a team that returned most it's talent and still regressed.

They were more competitive last year than they have been in half a decade.

 

[Sykobuff]

Honest question: if CU makes a bowl at 5-7 (with 3 conference wins) is that considered a success?

3 conference wins would be a success. The problem is, we would all settle for 5-7 if it meant a bowl game, which shows how mediocre this program has become.

 

[sackman]

He took over a bad situation and has failed to make it better.

Gotta disagree with you in this one. He took over a total disaster. He took over a squad that would have seriously had difficulty beating a halfway decent high school team. We are in much better shape today than in 2013.

 

[The Ogre]

Wow, ****ty ****ing choices. X - bowl game. Idiots are drown out by positive fans, and the Buffs Rise is proven real.

Go Buffs!

 

[DiggerBuffs]

Wow, ****ty ****ing choices. X - bowl game. Idiots are drown out by positive fans, and the Buffs Rise is proven real.

Go Buffs!

That is the last option moron.

 

[Duff Man]

Gotta disagree with you in this one. He took over a total disaster. He took over a squad that would have seriously had difficulty beating a halfway decent high school team. We are in much better shape today than in 2013.

At QB, he has not really improved the talent or depth, which is specifically what I was talking about. The long-term outlook at that position is rather suspect.

 

[Big Jim]

Idiots are drown out by positive fans

You can't make this stuff up.