Officially off the Macintyre bandwagon

[8Jah]

If you really believe this then we should fire Mac immediately. We've been pulling classes ranked between 30 and 70 for a decade. If that's as good as we should expect to recruit and classes in that range all give us basically the same chance to win then Mac has shown he can't win at this level with that level of talent.

I think that's ridiculous, but it's the conclusion you must be coming to. The idea that the players we have just need to work harder is one of the stupidest things I've seen in here in a while.

6 premises:
Premise 1 - talented recruits are the most important ingredient to winning
Premise 2 - you have to have competent recruiters that can find and sell to recruits
Premise 3 - recruits get to decide what offers they pick...not recruiters
Premise 4 - good recruits seek successful programs
Premise 5 - after some point, excellent recruiting has no effect on a recruit's decision
Lemma 1 - it follows from 4 and 5 that unsuccessful programs need to generate success to bring in better recruits
Lemma 2 - they have to become successful with the players they have and can recruit...not the recruits who decide not to come
Premise 6 - a team of less talented players has to work harder to beat teams of more talented players
Conclusion - unsuccessful programs have to build success through hard work in order to generate better recruiting opportunities.

really simple.

Some people here think we fail at premise 2. Maybe there is an argument there. But I think a lot more people don't want to accept premise 5. They want to magically think we could find some uberRecruiter who could convince kids to make decisions they don't want to make. If you think we have at least competent recruiters then you have to accept we need to win more to pull in the next tier of better recruits.

The implausibility of recruiting class rankings above thirty is an unrelated side beef I have with the recruiting agencies.

 

[Duff Man]

I think you are the one confused. No one disputes that excellent recruiters can only do so much. No one is even asking for "uberRecruiters" at every position. Most people dispute the notion that we have "at least competent recruiters" at certain positions. That is the whole freaking point.

You keep talking in circles. I am dumbfounded you are actually going all in on "nothing matters after 30."

 

[BlackNGold]

Pretty simple at this point-MM beats Utah, or he's back on the hot seat going into next year. Rick George is not the type of AD who will tolerate 5-7 seasons with 3 layups in the non-con.

IMO, MacIntyre will be coaching here in 2019 no matter how hot the seat is. I do not see CU eating a $9 million contract buyout. It is not just the money it is also the optics.

 

[Sykobuff]

6 premises:
Premise 1 - talented recruits are the most important ingredient to winning
Premise 2 - you have to have competent recruiters that can find and sell to recruits
Premise 3 - recruits get to decide what offers they pick...not recruiters
Premise 4 - good recruits seek successful programs
Premise 5 - after some point, excellent recruiting has no effect on a recruit's decision
Lemma 1 - it follows from 4 and 5 that unsuccessful programs need to generate success to bring in better recruits
Lemma 2 - they have to become successful with the players they have and can recruit...not the recruits who decide not to come
Premise 6 - a team of less talented players has to work harder to beat teams of more talented players
Conclusion - unsuccessful programs have to build success through hard work in order to generate better recruiting opportunities.

really simple.

Some people here think we fail at premise 2. Maybe there is an argument there. But I think a lot more people don't want to accept premise 5. They want to magically think we could find some uberRecruiter who could convince kids to make decisions they don't want to make. If you think we have at least competent recruiters then you have to accept we need to win more to pull in the next tier of better recruits.

The implausibility of recruiting class rankings above thirty is an unrelated side beef I have with the recruiting agencies.

If you think this staff is recruiting at a level to the goals set by RG, you're dead wrong.

 

[BuffinCali]

The fact the Buffs are fighting for bowl eligibility with Losses to UCLA and ASU is maddening. Both teams are not particularly well coached.

And CU is well coached? I would venture to say MM is not a good game day coach and is out-coached essentially every Pac12 game.

 

[skibum]

Premise 1 - talented recruits are the most important ingredient to winning
Premise 2 - you have to have competent recruiters that can find and sell to recruits
Premise 3 - recruits get to decide what offers they pick...not recruiters
Premise 4 - good recruits seek successful programs
Premise 5 - after some point, excellent recruiting has no effect on a recruit's decision
Lemma 1 - it follows from 4 and 5 that unsuccessful programs need to generate success to bring in better recruits

You should really look at and learn about the recruitment of this really famous Buff named Sal Aunese and the other guys in his recruiting class.

 

[ahoelsken]

IMO, MacIntyre will be coaching here in 2019 no matter how hot the seat is. I do not see CU eating a $9 million contract buyout. It is not just the money it is also the optics.

Optics? Lol Tennessee gave Butch Jones that kind of money to go away. Nevertheless-if Bohnhead were still the AD here, I would probably agree. Rick George doesn't strike me as the type who makes pronouncements about his football program winning conference championships and contending for playoff spots by 2020 or whatever it was and then not holding a coach he didn't hire accountable for this type of play if it continues into next year.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The optics would only look bad if fired one year after given the extension. If he misses a bowl game this year AND in 2018, I can't see RG keeping him around regardless of how it looks or how much money is owed.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I dont think he's crossed into firing territory or gotten even very close to it.

 

[SINKRATZ]

6 premises:
Premise 1 - talented recruits are the most important ingredient to winning
Premise 2 - you have to have competent recruiters that can find and sell to recruits
Premise 3 - recruits get to decide what offers they pick...not recruiters
Premise 4 - good recruits seek successful programs
Premise 5 - after some point, excellent recruiting has no effect on a recruit's decision
Lemma 1 - it follows from 4 and 5 that unsuccessful programs need to generate success to bring in better recruits
Lemma 2 - they have to become successful with the players they have and can recruit...not the recruits who decide not to come
Premise 6 - a team of less talented players has to work harder to beat teams of more talented players
Conclusion - unsuccessful programs have to build success through hard work in order to generate better recruiting opportunities.

really simple.

Some people here think we fail at premise 2. Maybe there is an argument there. But I think a lot more people don't want to accept premise 5. They want to magically think we could find some uberRecruiter who could convince kids to make decisions they don't want to make. If you think we have at least competent recruiters then you have to accept we need to win more to pull in the next tier of better recruits.

The implausibility of recruiting class rankings above thirty is an unrelated side beef I have with the recruiting agencies.

The fallacy in your argument lies in Premise 4 and 5 because, while true for some kids, they are not universal truths.

Premise 4: sure, some kids will choose to go to the best football program that offers them, but not all. Some kids value playing time, or a relationship with a specific coach, or going to a system that will showcase their abilities. Some kids actually look at the full student-athlete experience and are interested in a specific degree program, or how fun the town is, or how hot the girls are. Some kids want to stay close to home, or somewhere where they will get play in front of family and friends more often, and some have friends at a school and want to go there. In last year's class alone nearly everyone we signed chose CU over more successful programs so this premise is flawed.

Premise 5: again, some kids make up their mind and there's nothing a recruiter can do to change it. Other kids want to learn as much as they can about a program before deciding and that process often leads right up to signing day. Some kids make a premature decision and start rethinking their options. Some kids commit to a school whose goes through an unexpected coaching change. These are all kids who a solid recruiter can have an effect on. Casey Roddick was a Cal commit that we flipped and was our final commitment on signing day - excellent recruiting helped secure his signing so this premise is flawed.

 

[Johnny Juzang]

Some of you guys are great typists,

 

[MtnBuff]

6 premises:
Premise 1 - talented recruits are the most important ingredient to winning
Premise 2 - you have to have competent recruiters that can find and sell to recruits
Premise 3 - recruits get to decide what offers they pick...not recruiters
Premise 4 - good recruits seek successful programs
Premise 5 - after some point, excellent recruiting has no effect on a recruit's decision
Lemma 1 - it follows from 4 and 5 that unsuccessful programs need to generate success to bring in better recruits
Lemma 2 - they have to become successful with the players they have and can recruit...not the recruits who decide not to come
Premise 6 - a team of less talented players has to work harder to beat teams of more talented players
Conclusion - unsuccessful programs have to build success through hard work in order to generate better recruiting opportunities.

really simple.

Some people here think we fail at premise 2. Maybe there is an argument there. But I think a lot more people don't want to accept premise 5. They want to magically think we could find some uberRecruiter who could convince kids to make decisions they don't want to make. If you think we have at least competent recruiters then you have to accept we need to win more to pull in the next tier of better recruits.

The implausibility of recruiting class rankings above thirty is an unrelated side beef I have with the recruiting agencies.

1,2, 3 are all correct.4 is true to an extent but recruits will go where they think they can be a part of a successful program, they will buy into the future, 5 is true to the extent that ultimately the recruits decide but it has been proven over and over that excellent recruiting can make a big difference in who players pick.

Fact is that it isn't just a case of hard work and good coaching. This is the highest level of college football, one step below the NFL. If you don't think that everybody works hard, that everybody tries to maximize coaching, then you haven't been paying attention. Tell me which school in the top 10, top 15, top 25 doesn't work every bit as hard or coach every bit as intensely as M2s program.

No, hard work and good coaching won't pull you up, all they will do is keep you from falling further behind.

Losing programs that become winning programs do it by bringing in better quality players, they recruit their way up.

 

[buffbuffpass]

Optics? Lol Tennessee gave Butch Jones that kind of money to go away. Nevertheless-if Bohnhead were still the AD here, I would probably agree. Rick George doesn't strike me as the type who makes pronouncements about his football program winning conference championships and contending for playoff spots by 2020 or whatever it was and then not holding a coach he didn't hire accountable for this type of play if it continues into next year.

Optics can tie RG's hand too though. Assuming another down year next year, RG may want to move on, but the optics on a $9 Million buyout (let alone 12) in the people's republic will go over like a lead balloon. Between the BDC and the DP the local media will be screaming bloody murder about the cost of athletics. As someone else said earlier Kroll would be running around with a three inch chubby. I would give CU a 50/50 shot of doing the right thing.

 

[Bufffan68]

I dont think he's crossed into firing territory or gotten even very close to it.

This. There's still a chance of going 7-6...which is about where many people on this board had us preseason. As others have posted...miss a bowl game next year and RG will have no choice IMO.

 

[ahoelsken]

Optics can tie RG's hand too though. Assuming another down year next year, RG may want to move on, but the optics on a $9 Million buyout (let alone 12) in the people's republic will go over like a lead balloon. Between the BDC and the DP the local media will be screaming bloody murder about the cost of athletics. As someone else said earlier Kroll would be running around with a three inch chubby. I would give CU a 50/50 shot of doing the right thing.

Not sure if Kroll would have any ground to stand on if he did anything like that-the AD has balanced the budget every year since RG took it over five years ago. The DP is trash (every person who writes about college sports for them covered CSU at one point in their career), and the BDC (other than Brian Howell) isn't worth reading either. Let's just get a W against the Utes so we don't have to spend the next nine months talking about MM's job security.

 

[Bufffan68]

Let's just get a W against the Utes so we don't have to spend the next nine months talking about MM's job security.

This! A win if for no other reason...

 

[BlackNGold]

The optics would only look bad if fired one year after given the extension. If he misses a bowl game this year AND in 2018, I can't see RG keeping him around regardless of how it looks or how much money is owed.

It is not Rick George's decision alone. CU leadership is constantly going to the legislature for more money and rightly or wrongly - paying out $9 million will get the anti-athletics crowd up in arms. This is not the SEC where the school can be broke (LSU) but there is hell to pay if the football team is not winning.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

It is not Rick George's decision alone. CU leadership is constantly going to the legislature for more money and rightly or wrongly - paying out $9 million will get the anti-athletics crowd up in arms. This is not the SEC where the school can be broke (LSU) but there is hell to pay if the football team is not winning.

He has to able to sell the administration on his vision for a successful AD, which starts and ends with a successful football program. If he doesn’t believe MM is the right guy to get the program, and thus the AD to that level, then I would hope he’d be able to sell them on the idea of $9m-$12m being a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. What’s the opportunity cost to the AD of keeping an underachieving HC around for 2+ years solely because they don’t want to pay his buyout? Remember that there is also a strong correlation between successful football program and number of student applicants.

 

[ahoelsken]

He has to able to sell the administration on his vision for a successful AD, which starts and ends with a successful football program. If he doesn’t believe MM is the right guy to get the program, and thus the AD to that level, then I would hope he’d be able to sell them on the idea of $9m-$12m being a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. What’s the opportunity cost to the AD of keeping an underachieving HC around for 2+ years solely because they don’t want to pay his buyout? Remember that there is also a strong correlation between successful football program and number of student applicants.

I would have thought 10 years of bad football would have taught everybody up there a lesson.......

 

[BuffaloB]

He has to able to sell the administration on his vision for a successful AD, which starts and ends with a successful football program. If he doesn’t believe MM is the right guy to get the program, and thus the AD to that level, then I would hope he’d be able to sell them on the idea of $9m-$12m being a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. What’s the opportunity cost to the AD of keeping an underachieving HC around for 2+ years solely because they don’t want to pay his buyout? Remember that there is also a strong correlation between successful football program and number of student applicants.

RG maybe reluctant to fire HCMM sooner rather then later because then he is down to 1 more hire before he is fired. He is probably lucky he is not at a football crazy school where he would on get 1 hire total, then fired.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

RG maybe reluctant to fire HCMM sooner rather then later because then he is down to 1 more hire before he is fired. He is probably lucky he is not at a football crazy school where he would on get 1 hire total, then fired.

What do you mean? RG hasn’t hired a football coach yet. Mike Bohn got to hire Hawkins, fire Hawkins, hire Embree, fire Embree, and hire Mac.

 

[8Jah]

The fallacy in your argument lies in Premise 4 and 5 because, while true for some kids, they are not universal truths.

Premise 4: sure, some kids will choose to go to the best football program that offers them, but not all. Some kids value playing time, or a relationship with a specific coach, or going to a system that will showcase their abilities. Some kids actually look at the full student-athlete experience and are interested in a specific degree program, or how fun the town is, or how hot the girls are. Some kids want to stay close to home, or somewhere where they will get play in front of family and friends more often, and some have friends at a school and want to go there. In last year's class alone nearly everyone we signed chose CU over more successful programs so this premise is flawed.

Premise 5: again, some kids make up their mind and there's nothing a recruiter can do to change it. Other kids want to learn as much as they can about a program before deciding and that process often leads right up to signing day. Some kids make a premature decision and start rethinking their options. Some kids commit to a school whose goes through an unexpected coaching change. These are all kids who a solid recruiter can have an effect on. Casey Roddick was a Cal commit that we flipped and was our final commitment on signing day - excellent recruiting helped secure his signing so this premise is flawed.

Premise 4: The data shows that the high quality recruits choose from among the best programs. The top 25 recruiting class data shows that the best programs get the best recruits. Another way of looking at that same data is that the top recruits pick the best schools. If they don't get playing time at one great school they will choose another great school. A top recruit isn't going to play for Kansas, where they could start as a freshman. There are other reasons, sure. Some schools get lucky with a great recruit who wants to stay near home, you see this all the time, but one good player doesn't make a good class. Across a class, it is almost impossible to deny the data that kids choose from among the highest performance schools that they get offers from.

Premise 5: A competent recruiter (premise 2) will work hard to develop a relationship with a recruit, will continue to follow a recruit, will continue to sell his program, etc... Anything beyond that you are victim to the magic salesman fallacy....that there are magically-gifted persuaders who could convince a kid and his family to do anything. There is no such recruiter. If you want to find that recruiter to magically get your program to the next level, then you are the guy I am calling crazy!

 

[8Jah]

1,2, 3 are all correct.4 is true to an extent but recruits will go where they think they can be a part of a successful program, they will buy into the future, 5 is true to the extent that ultimately the recruits decide but it has been proven over and over that excellent recruiting can make a big difference in who players pick.

Fact is that it isn't just a case of hard work and good coaching. This is the highest level of college football, one step below the NFL. If you don't think that everybody works hard, that everybody tries to maximize coaching, then you haven't been paying attention. Tell me which school in the top 10, top 15, top 25 doesn't work every bit as hard or coach every bit as intensely as M2s program.

No, hard work and good coaching won't pull you up, all they will do is keep you from falling further behind.

Losing programs that become winning programs do it by bringing in better quality players, they recruit their way up.

Everybody has that level that they consider hard. They will tell you they are working hard and they are being truthful. What they can't see is the next level of hard, and there is always a next level. Of the great coaches I have known, their greatest talent is helping athletes find a way to work harder than they ever knew they could. Compared to High School, most college football athletes think they work hard, but most can work a lot harder.

 

[hawg1]

Comparing recruiting class rank above 30 means almost nothing. Few people know all the sausage making that goes on at these recruiting services. Services whose real job it is to do nothing more than entertain you. There are over 1 million growing/learning teenagers who play HS FB spread over 4 million ****ing miles and seven time zones. Recruiting services bring their tape and scales to measure 4 and 5 stars. They got that down. They rank low three stars on rumors they hear from coaches and other players. They give a honorary two star to anyone they haven't heard about. How come there are no one stars. Guess everyone gets a medal that way.

Yeah for Alabama and USC and Notre Dame those recruiting rankings really tell them something. For the rest of us we have to have a different strategy.

To those black and white types here that struggle with any nuance whatsoever, this DOES NOT mean that recruiting isn't important. We just don't have a means of comparing with our peers. You see how well you did by looking at what you see on the field three years later. ..and I think you see PAC12 players at CU now where you didn't three years ago. you can argue that our Dline has recruit problems, but we had a good dline and a good dline recruiting class last year...so I don't know there. Just think peoples expectations of where we could be recruiting at this point are unreasonable. We are getting good enough recruits to do better than we currently are.

Stop worrying about rankings. It’s aggregate star ratings that matters. The higher the stars in aggregate for a series of classes over four years is correlated to winning percentage. Indisputable data.

Stars matter in the aggregate.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Premise 4: The data shows that the high quality recruits choose from among the best programs. The top 25 recruiting class data shows that the best programs get the best recruits. Another way of looking at that same data is that the top recruits pick the best schools. If they don't get playing time at one great school they will choose another great school. A top recruit isn't going to play for Kansas, where they could start as a freshman. There are other reasons, sure. Some schools get lucky with a great recruit who wants to stay near home, you see this all the time, but one good player doesn't make a good class. Across a class, it is almost impossible to deny the data that kids choose from among the highest performance schools that they get offers from.

Premise 5: A competent recruiter (premise 2) will work hard to develop a relationship with a recruit, will continue to follow a recruit, will continue to sell his program, etc... Anything beyond that you are victim to the magic salesman fallacy....that there are magically-gifted persuaders who could convince a kid and his family to do anything. There is no such recruiter. If you want to find that recruiter to magically get your program to the next level, then you are the guy I am calling crazy!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you rationalize mediocrity - well done, you're almost qualified to be a DL coach at CU.

 

[BuffaloB]

What do you mean? RG hasn’t hired a football coach yet. Mike Bohn got to hire Hawkins, fire Hawkins, hire Embree, fire Embree, and hire Mac.

Yes RG came 6 months after HCMM, IMHO he gave MM the extension and at a school like CU he most definitely has another head coach hire if so desired. At most SEC schools by giving him the extension, that better work or he would be out without getting another hire.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Yes RG came 6 months after HCMM, IMHO he gave MM the extension and at a school like CU he most definitely has another head coach hire if so desired. At most SEC schools by giving him the extension, that better work or he would be out without getting another hire.

He has done a fantastic job with the AD in just about every way imaginable. Mac deserved an extension and pay raise, and the salary increase simply put him on par with other Pac 12 coaches. RG is not remotely in danger of being fired, regardless of what MM does going forward. Whether he fires Mac in a year or two, or Mac leaves for another job, RG will be hiring the next HC, short of him leaving on his own.

 

[mattrob]

Premise 4: The data shows that the high quality recruits choose from among the best programs. The top 25 recruiting class data shows that the best programs get the best recruits. Another way of looking at that same data is that the top recruits pick the best schools. If they don't get playing time at one great school they will choose another great school. A top recruit isn't going to play for Kansas, where they could start as a freshman. There are other reasons, sure. Some schools get lucky with a great recruit who wants to stay near home, you see this all the time, but one good player doesn't make a good class. Across a class, it is almost impossible to deny the data that kids choose from among the highest performance schools that they get offers from.

Premise 5: A competent recruiter (premise 2) will work hard to develop a relationship with a recruit, will continue to follow a recruit, will continue to sell his program, etc... Anything beyond that you are victim to the magic salesman fallacy....that there are magically-gifted persuaders who could convince a kid and his family to do anything. There is no such recruiter. If you want to find that recruiter to magically get your program to the next level, then you are the guy I am calling crazy!

This is getting bizarre now. You've created this entire logic stream to support your argument, while ignoring the single point every one else in this thread is making. If you believe that a recruiter, or any other salesman, falls into a binary "competent" or "incompetent" category based solely on how hard they work, I don't know what to tell you. Setting aside the fact that there are coaches on the staff who clearly fall into the "incompetent" category, there are absolutely salesmen (recruiters) who are more persuasive than others and (gasp!) may even have the ability to convince someone to make a decision or purchase they were originally opposed to. It's kind of the nature of the profession.

 

[leftybuff]

Everybody has that level that they consider hard. They will tell you they are working hard and they are being truthful. What they can't see is the next level of hard, and there is always a next level. Of the great coaches I have known, their greatest talent is helping athletes find a way to work harder than they ever knew they could. Compared to High School, most college football athletes think they work hard, but most can work a lot harder.

Avis could have the best football team ever.

 

[ahoelsken]

What do you mean? RG hasn’t hired a football coach yet. Mike Bohn got to hire Hawkins, fire Hawkins, hire Embree, fire Embree, and hire Mac.

Not only that, but I'd say RG has more rope than a typical AD because hes drastically turned around the finances of the department.....