Who is Brian Howell?

[Buffnik]

He tweeted me that he expects the Buffs to be significantly better next year - and to win 3-5 games.

Unless we get a new President for next year who values athletics as integral to the university (assuming Benson retires), it is all but guaranteed that Embree will get a 4th year. The groundwork in the media regarding standards for acceptable improvement is already being laid.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Howell's a good guy and he's trying to engage. He and I just disagree on this one.

One example he used was Rich Brooks at Kentucky. I think the record was 4 wins in Y1, 2 wins in Y2 with declining stats despite a Sr QB, and then followed by 4 straight bowl appearances.

It's a great argument for why it would pay to have patience if you hire a guy who has been both a college and pro DC, spent 18 successful years as HC of a BCS program and also was an NFL HC for a few years prior to taking over the program.

So, I will make a vow. If CU hires someone with that kind of resume, I will not allow the W/L record, scoring differential or statistical rankings of the team to cause me to call for termination.

As I said to Howell, patience is earned.

He brought up Wulff at WSU to me.

But Wulff also had coordinator, and head coaching experience prior to his time at WSU. He was more of a "Dan Hawkins" coach by background.

Apples and oranges, if you ask me.

 

[NW Buff]

He brought up Wulff at WSU to me.

But Wulff also had coordinator, and head coaching experience prior to his time at WSU. He was more of a "Dan Hawkins" coach by background.

Apples and oranges, if you ask me.

And Wulff never managed to turn the program around. His best season in Pullman was 4-8 and 2 wins in the Pac12 and last place in the north... Is that what we are aspiring to?

 

[Buffnik]

I saw a tweet where he brought up Paul Wulff. That one just boggles me.

Yeah. I said that I was actually opposed to that firing because I saw the talent and performance improving and Wulff had a track record of success as a head coach. I really think he was building it up by recruiting targeted geography to his system. Howell told me that Wulff is the best argument for keeping Embree. Since the end of that conversation, I decided to do a little research. It looks to me that my perceptions as someone who looked at Wazzu from afar were wrong. I was being way too patient with Wulff.

I was wrong.

The Wulff case provides a great argument for my case that hiring a name coach provides an instant bump to a transitional class and the following class. (And Leach isn't even a good recruiter. He hates recruiting.)

Wazzu's record:
2007: 5-7 (pre-Wulff)
2008: 2-11
2009: 1-11
2010: 2-10
2011: 4-8
2012: 2-9

Recruiting (Rivals class ranking):
2008: #87 (pre-Wulff)
2009: #92 (transitional class)
2010: #90 (new coach bump - ouch!)
2011: #72
2012: #55 (Leach transitional class)
2013: #51 (in-progress Leach class)

 

[sackman]

Using Paul Wulff, a guy who never once had a winning season at WSU and probably *should* have been fired after his second year, as an example of why we should keep Embree is insane.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Good to know that WSU during the Wulff tenure is what we're aiming to emulate.

 

[Buffnik]

Comparing to the Wazzu case, here's the same analysis on CU:

Record:
2010: 5-7 (pre-Embree)
2011: 3-10
2012: 1-10

Recruiting (Rivals class ranking):

2010: #66 (pre-Embree)
2011: #74 (transitional class)
2012: #36 (new coach bump)
2013: #63 (in-progress class)

What I'm suggesting is that a name hire right now would have an effect similar to Leach.

We have a 2012 class that CU can win with.

A new coach should have at least the Leach effect (23.6% bump) and put bring the 2013 class in around #50.

Then, the 2014 class with the new coach bump should be able to at least match Embree's #36 class (Hawk got a #32 in the like class).

So, changing coaches now could be expected to yield a program that has 2 classes in the 30s and one around 50.

If Embree is on the same track as Hawkins was or even Wulff, we're looking at a class in the 30s and 2 in the 60s.

This is the crux of my argument.