Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Los Angeles Is Colorado's RED LETTER Games

InTheBuff

InTheBuff

Club Member
Club Member
Mac announced with the approval of Embree that CU will mark both UCLA and USC as RED LETTER games every year.
Cites alumni base, percentage of students who go to CU come from California and also that Los Angeles produces the most college football players than anywhere else in the nation.
 
Meh - Sounds to me like yet another attempt to "return to the glorious past". Screw the red letters .... just win some games. Then we can worry about who our "rival" should be.
 
Last edited:
He is doing the same thing he did with Nebraska. USC is the Pac-12's Nebraska I think. Well back in the 80's and 90's when the Nubs were a powerhouse, not so much anymore. Either way I think it is stupid for Mac to come out and chose rivals for us. From what I have heard from the Parade of Buffs, Mac is losing it as he gets older.
 
I think some of you are missing the point. this is not about naming a rival; it's about designating a target of where the Buffs should be. Beat USC and UCLA often enough, it means you've reached a level where you are winning 7+ conference games a year, beating the teams that have the built in advantage (being in and recruiting LA), and laying a foundation for the continued success of CU. Beat these teams on a consistent basis, and you are in a position to compete for national championships.
 
El Gringo said:
I think some of you are missing the point. this is not about naming a rival; it's about designating a target of where the Buffs should be. Beat USC and UCLA often enough, it means you've reached a level where you are winning 7+ conference games a year, beating the teams that have the built in advantage (being in and recruiting LA), and laying a foundation for the continued success of CU. Beat these teams on a consistent basis, and you are in a position to compete for national championships.
Click to expand...

Should we even be talking about this when we can only win but 1 or 2 games in conference at best?
 
El Gringo said:
I think some of you are missing the point. this is not about naming a rival; it's about designating a target of where the Buffs should be. Beat USC and UCLA often enough, it means you've reached a level where you are winning 7+ conference games a year, beating the teams that have the built in advantage (being in and recruiting LA), and laying a foundation for the continued success of CU. Beat these teams on a consistent basis, and you are in a position to compete for national championships.
Click to expand...

REP- You are correct.
It's about setting goals & if CU can do this I believe we all will be happy with the results.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Should we even be talking about this when we can only win but 1 or 2 games in conference at best?
Click to expand...

CU did this back in 1982 when Mac became coach. Circled the Corn as their red letter game.
Wasn't it 1984 when they went 1-10 ?
2 years later they beat 3rd ranked Nebraska 20-10 in Folsom.
 
I love Mac for all he did at CU but it is time we stop living on what happened 20 years ago. The traditions need to be kept in place but he is starting to look like the crazy grandpa everyone wants to hide. This red letter thing is contrived when it is used this way. If Embo wants to put USC in red and hold that as standard the team shoots for as a motivator for the team, great but keep it internal at this point. Break it out when we are making progress and can start to talk about contending. Now it just seems kind of desperate in public.
 
Harbaugh made a similar statement about USC when he took over at Stanford and everyone laughed. Now Stanford owns USC. I would rather this came from a fiery head coach than Mac.
 
InTheBuff said:
Mac announced with the approval of Embree that CU will mark both UCLA and USC as RED LETTER games every year.
Cites alumni base, percentage of students who go to CU come from California and also that Los Angeles produces the most college football players than anywhere else in the nation.
Click to expand...

Putting the “red letter” ceremony aside, I think SoCal is the holy grail for CU. That is the absolute sweet spot for CU recruiting. For a number of reasons, I think it is 10x easier for CU to pry top recruits away from SoCal than any other recruiting hot spot in the country. I think a number of guys actually want to leave SoCal to go to school, especially if they’re from the ‘hood. Of course, countless schools are fishing in the same pond, but I don’t see any reason why CU should lose out to other non-Cali teams (save Oregon) on a SoCal recruit who is looking to leave SoCal. I think CU, with the Boulder/Rocky Mountain locaiton, brings a unique product that sells well in SoCal. It's something different and appealing. Appealing to parents, too--with the healthy vibe of Boulder, more of a "protective" college town experince vs. urban locations in LA, SF, Oakland, Seattle, Phoenix, etc.
 
Last edited:
Buffalo Brad said:
I love Mac for all he did at CU but it is time we stop living on what happened 20 years ago. The traditions need to be kept in place but he is starting to look like the crazy grandpa everyone wants to hide. This red letter thing is contrived when it is used this way. If Embo wants to put USC in red and hold that as standard the team shoots for as a motivator for the team, great but keep it internal at this point. Break it out when we are making progress and can start to talk about contending. Now it just seems kind of desperate in public.
Click to expand...

I disagree. You make this a goal and you tell everyone otherwise it is just bs. I have heard from a bunch of people on this site how the AD and the presidents need to come out and say "we are commited to winning a nat champ" or something like that. And the argument goes until you make a statement public you dont have to actually commit to it and you get nothing done. This works the same way.

You pick the level of success you want to emulate and then you go after it. I am glad
 
So why is the supposed best recruiter on this staff spending so much time in Louisiana while a coach like Marshall is primarily working in So Cal (including Westlake and Oaks Christian)? Picking those schools is fine, but good luck pulling it off without an all-out assault in recruiting.
 
buffs04 said:
CU is not going to beat USC on a regular basis regardless of what happens with our program.
Click to expand...

While I'm not sure how I feel about this new red letter game, this is exactly the attitude that Mac attacked when he named NU the red letter game. Nobody thought we could compete with Nebraska and win on a regular basis, and Mac went out and did just that.

I guarantee Stanford made USC a red letter game under Haurbagh, and they now have a 4 game winning streak against them.
 
buffs04 said:
CU is not going to beat USC on a regular basis regardless of what happens with our program.
Click to expand...

Not now and it could take a while for us - but remember that college football goes in cycles.

UCLA has always had top-flight talent but been a regular under-achiever. With a top-flight coach they become a top program and the jury is out on Mora (although looking better than the weasel already). USC has always had the same - but it took until Carroll for them to get back to being on-top again after quite a period of being just a mediocre program with great talent. While it seems they are there and will always be on top - history proves that assumption wrong.
 
I get UCLA, but the USC talk is simply beyond silly right now. Let's make a bowl game and keep a game with USC within 3 TDs before we ever mention that again (and frankly, it's still asinine even at that point). Do the blue hairs realize that basically no one remembers what went on 20 years ago? It's literally a joke to be talking like this externally until we prove SOMETHING. ANYTHING.
 
Last edited:
the problem I have with "red letter" games, is you put to much stock into that 1 game....ala CU vs csu / lose and the rest of your season is shot to sh!t
 
Geezus people! remember when haLk made nebraska the same color as all the other teams and everyone flipped their ****? A bunch of looser talk here. Do the words "FIGHT ... FIGHT ... FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT" mean anything to you? You want to be the best, target the best.
 
CVilleBuff said:
I get UCLA, but the USC talk is simply beyond silly right now. Let's make a bowl game and keep a game with USC within 3 TDs before we ever mention that again (and frankly, it's still asinine even at that point). Do the blue hairs realize that basically no one remembers what went on 20 years ago? It's literally a joke to be talking like this externally until we prove SOMETHING. ANYTHING.
Click to expand...
yep
 
tante said:
did you mean 1987 when USC went 8-4, 1988 when USC went 10-2, 1989 when USC went 9-2-1 or 1990 when USC went 8-4-1
Click to expand...


Let's take a bigger look at USC. When Mac was getting started and recruiting USC was not very good by USC standards, and opened the doors to SoCal recruiting. The three years you highlighted were arguably some of the best years USC had from 1982 until Carroll's first year in 2001. When USC is losing 3+ games a season the door definitely swings open for recuiting victories.

1982 8 3 0
1983 4 6 1
1984* 9 3 0
1985 6 6 0
1986 7 5 0
1987* 8 4 0
1988* 10 2 0
1989* 9 2 1
1990 8 4 1
1991 3 8 0
1992 6 5 1
1993* 8 5 0
1994 8 3 1
1995* 9 2 1
1996 6 6 —[1]
1997 6 5 —
1998 8 5 —
1999 6 6 —
2000 5 7 —
2001 6 6 —

Heck of a run they had from 1996-2001...On a side note - I sure wish Mac could have waited to retire until somewhere around 2000.

Again - College football always goes in cycles.
 
I wasn't following USC in the 80s and early 90s, but I would imagine they were recruiting at least pretty well even when they were down. It's hard for me to imagine USC stocking the entire cupboard with 2* talent.
 
92Buff said:
Let's take a bigger look at USC. When Mac was getting started and recruiting USC was not very good by USC standards, and opened the doors to SoCal recruiting. The three years you highlighted were arguably some of the best years USC had from 1982 until Carroll's first year in 2001. When USC is losing 3+ games a season the door definitely swings open for recuiting victories.
Click to expand...

yes but WW said when CU was great. They sure as heck weren't great from 1982 to 2001. I don't know enough about the core players from the national championship team to properly analyze.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top