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!

2018 Season Prediction Thread

How many wins this year?

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10

  • 11

  • 12

Results are only viewable after voting.
If there's one thing I know, it's that AllBuffs always has its finger on the pulse of the team and collectively makes accurate predictions.
2015: 11% of respondents thought they would win 4 games or fewer (58% thought 6 or 7 games)
2016: 9.5% of respondents thought they would win 10 games or more (53% thought 6 or 7 games, 27% (me included) thought 3-5 games)

I can't find a poll for last year but I didn't see a single person go on record predicting that they would miss a bowl game.
 
CUAviator said:
This can be said about a majority of teams in college football.
Click to expand...

Beg to differ about your concept of “average”. It takes six wins to qualify for a bowl. 6-6 should be average, at least by record. Over half of all FBS teams (appx. 70) participate in a bowl game each season. Macintyre’s teams at Colorado have gone to a bowl exactly one time.

I keep reading here on AllBuffs that we have higher expectations than to be average. The AD expects championships sooner than later. We don’t have championship money raised, but we are supposed to be moving in that direction.

As I have for nearly my entire life, I will cheer for CU to succeed. I want CU to win every game (even if I don’t think we have a shot in hell). But, having been a CU fan since the mid 1980s, I am a realist.

Speaking realistically, we are in a bind with our current head coach. He has been good enough to get us out of the cellar, but not good enough to make our football team anything more than below average. I hope to be wrong about this year’s team.

Overall, I think basic questions about blocking, tackling, and generating pressure with this team largely remain.
 
manhattanbuf said:
Beg to differ about your concept of “average”. It takes six wins to qualify for a bowl. 6-6 should be average, at least by record. Over half of all FBS teams (appx. 70) participate in a bowl game each season. Macintyre’s teams at Colorado have gone to a bowl exactly one time.

I keep reading here on AllBuffs that we have higher expectations than to be average. The AD expects championships sooner than later. We don’t have championship money raised, but we are supposed to be moving in that direction.

As I have for nearly my entire life, I will cheer for CU to succeed. I want CU to win every game (even if I don’t think we have a shot in hell). But, having been a CU fan since the mid 1980s, I am a realist.

Speaking realistically, we are in a bind with our current head coach. He has been good enough to get us out of the cellar, but not good enough to make our football team anything more than below average. I hope to be wrong about this year’s team.

Overall, I think basic questions about blocking, tackling, and generating pressure with this team largely remain.
Click to expand...
You clearly missed the bold print in his response lol.
 
manhattanbuf said:
Beg to differ about your concept of “average”. It takes six wins to qualify for a bowl. 6-6 should be average, at least by record. Over half of all FBS teams (appx. 70) participate in a bowl game each season. Macintyre’s teams at Colorado have gone to a bowl exactly one time.

I keep reading here on AllBuffs that we have higher expectations than to be average. The AD expects championships sooner than later. We don’t have championship money raised, but we are supposed to be moving in that direction.

As I have for nearly my entire life, I will cheer for CU to succeed. I want CU to win every game (even if I don’t think we have a shot in hell). But, having been a CU fan since the mid 1980s, I am a realist.

Speaking realistically, we are in a bind with our current head coach. He has been good enough to get us out of the cellar, but not good enough to make our football team anything more than below average. I hope to be wrong about this year’s team.

Overall, I think basic questions about blocking, tackling, and generating pressure with this team largely remain.
Click to expand...
Simmer down - look at the BOLDED portion of your quote in my response. You said “one of the DCs in college football”. I think you meant to say “one of the BEST DCs in college football”. I was merely implying that most teams, do in fact, have a DC.
 
CUAviator said:
Simmer down - look at the BOLDED portion of your quote in my response. You said “one of the DCs in college football”. I think you meant to say “one of the BEST DCs in college football”. I was merely implying that most teams, do in fact, have a DC.
Click to expand...

Haha. Ok.
 
7-5

CSU-W
Nebraska-W
New Hampshire-W
UCLA-L
ASU-W
USC-L
Udub-L
OSU-W
Arizona-L
WSU-W
Utah-L
Cal-W

Nebraska and Cal seem like the biggest question marks to me. Maybe WSU too? But they lost the DC and Falk, not sure they can replace that easily.
 
Buffalo Brad said:
You guys might as well start the “who will be the Buffs next coach?” Thread now.
Click to expand...

manhattanbuf said:
Macintyre has been the coach at CU for five seasons.

In those five seasons, he has had one winning season. We are all well aware of that magical season filled with mature, senior-laden NFL quality talent (especially on defense), a four year starter at QB, and one of the best DCs in the sport.

The other four seasons, Macintyre has averaged one conference win.
The other four seasons, Macintyre has averaged 3.75 wins per season.
The other four seasons, Macintyre has finished last in the Pac 12 South standings.

Even with a 10 win season, he has a 40% overall win percentage at Colorado. Even with an 8 win conference season, he has a 26.7% conference win percentage at Colorado.

Take out an aberrant season in 2016, his overall win percentage is 30%. Take out an abertant season in 2016, his conference win percentage is 11%.

Macintyre has not proven he can coach big time college football. As Macintyre’s mentor famously stated “you are what your record says you are”.
Click to expand...

He meant, like, to start a new thread...not to ruin this one.
 
Bliff Cranch said:
7-5
Mostly sure things, more or less in order of confidence:
  1. Washington is a loss. Needs little reasoning.
  2. OSU is a win. They’re awful.
  3. UNH is a win. They’re not bad at all, but greater talent and home opener, so..
  4. USC is a loss. In the Coliseum. Not quite in the Washington-loss class, but close.
  5. Utah is a loss. They’re loaded this year and especially strong up-front defensively which is strength against the Buffs weakness.
  6. ASU is a win. It’s at home and they’re not good.
  7. WSU is a win. It’s at home and they’re not good.
  8. CSU is a win. They’re the ewes but closer than we’d like to admit. The team who plays smarter and doesn’t give in to emotion will win.
  9. Arizona is a loss. The closest of my sure things. Tate and it’s on the road, so...
That’s 5-4 in the bank.
  1. Nubs - most if not all DL starters return. Yes, from a unit that sucked a year ago but according to Phil Steele that unit is predicted to make the biggest yoy improvement in all of the B10. If true, not a good matchup for a Buff OL that may still be trying to find its mojo. Their secondary is supposed to be much improved over last year too which could cause some problems. Oh, and it’s in very hostile territory. Hate this, but probably a loss.
To get to 7 wins, the Buffs have to win these close matchups:
  1. UCLA - Phil Steele predicts their LB corp to be top 45 but the Buffs get them at home following a bye. They’re not supposed to be very strong in DL so we should be able to control some things. Buffs pull away in the second half.
  2. Cal - Phil Steele predicts their LB corp to be top 50 which isn’t saying a lot but it’s something. He also thinks they’ll surprise this season. 81% chance they are better than they were last year. Away late in the season but with some marbles on the line, the Buffs find a way to win.
Click to expand...
I think this is the correct analysis.
 
TSchekler said:
Does anyone have access to this? I've apparently reached my 3 month article limit for them, so I am blocked.
Click to expand...

He’s not high on the Buffs at all, predicting 6-6, 3-6 in conference play. He also called Boulder the 3rd toughest job in the conference. I don’t agree with that at all.

He does however, drop this gem:
Sept. 8: at Nebraska
Result: Win
Record: 2-0
Comment: Love seeing the Huskers on CU’s schedule (first meeting since their Big 12 days). Not sure how this would play out three years hence, but for now, with established schemes and coaching cohesion, the Buffs are further along.
 
Highlander said:
He’s not high on the Buffs at all, predicting 6-6, 3-6 in conference play. He also called Boulder the 3rd toughest job in the conference. I don’t agree with that at all.

He does however, drop this gem:
Sept. 8: at Nebraska
Result: Win
Record: 2-0
Comment: Love seeing the Huskers on CU’s schedule (first meeting since their Big 12 days). Not sure how this would play out three years hence, but for now, with established schemes and coaching cohesion, the Buffs are further along.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's much different that what most have-Athlon has us at about the same.
 
Highlander said:
He’s not high on the Buffs at all, predicting 6-6, 3-6 in conference play. He also called Boulder the 3rd toughest job in the conference. I don’t agree with that at all.

He does however, drop this gem:
Sept. 8: at Nebraska
Result: Win
Record: 2-0
Comment: Love seeing the Huskers on CU’s schedule (first meeting since their Big 12 days). Not sure how this would play out three years hence, but for now, with established schemes and coaching cohesion, the Buffs are further along.
Click to expand...
What's the order or job toughness in the conference according to him? I would say the only jobs that are clearly tougher than CU are Oregon State and Washington State. After that, maybe Arizona due to lack of history and being a basketball school first and foremost? Maybe Cal and Stanford due to academic requirements and institutional limitations? USC, Oregon, UCLA, Washington and ASU are clearly in their own league on this scale, and I'd say ASU might be the "easiest" job if you take recruiting grounds, school/party reputation, basically no academic admittance requirements, and only moderate expectations.
 
TSchekler said:
What's the order or job toughness in the conference according to him? I would say the only jobs that are clearly tougher than CU are Oregon State and Washington State. After that, maybe Arizona due to lack of history and being a basketball school first and foremost? Maybe Cal and Stanford due to academic requirements and institutional limitations? USC, Oregon, UCLA, Washington and ASU are clearly in their own league on this scale, and I'd say ASU might be the "easiest" job if you take recruiting grounds, school/party reputation, basically no academic admittance requirements, and only moderate expectations.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

He put OSU and WSU as the only ones harder.
 
SINKRATZ said:
The CU job is easy - be marginally competitive, pull top 75 recruiting classes regularly, make a bowl game at least once during every player's eligibility, and don't get really, really bad press. Do that and you'll have a job for a long time.
Click to expand...
Let's assume he's talking about toughest jobs in the conference to actually be successful on a national level, not simply for the fanbase and administration expectations.
 
TSchekler said:
Let's assume he's talking about toughest jobs in the conference to actually be successful on a national level, not simply for the fanbase and administration expectations.
Click to expand...
Not that anyone gives a sh*t, but I'd rank them-

For Sustained Success
1. USC
2. Stanford
3. Oregon
4. UCLA
5. Washington
6. ASU
7. Colo
8. AZ
9. Cal
10. Utah
11. Wazzu
12. OSU
 
Gary Indiana said:
Not that anyone gives a sh*t, but I'd rank them-

For Sustained Success
1. USC
2. Stanford
3. Oregon
4. UCLA
5. Washington
6. ASU
7. Colo
8. AZ
9. Cal
10. Utah
11. Wazzu
12. OSU
Click to expand...

1. USC
2. Washington
3. Oregon
4. UCLA
5. ASU
6. Cal
7. Colorado
8. Stanford
9. Utah
10. Arizona
11. Wazzu
12. Oregon State

What has been going on at Stanford is the best that program has ever been or ever will be. Harbaugh and Shaw was like hitting the lottery twice. And while I think UCLA gets overrated by some I also see what Terry Donahue did for a long ass time there.
 
TSchekler said:
Let's assume he's talking about toughest jobs in the conference to actually be successful on a national level, not simply for the fanbase and administration expectations.
Click to expand...
That may be what he's saying, but that's not the job at CU.

The job is whatever it takes to meet the minimum expectations of the administration and from that perspective USC is a much harder job than CU.
 
TSchekler said:
To be fair, this wasn't about how good of a job each program is, but how tough of a job they are. I don't feel like UCLA should be that tough of a job.
Click to expand...

It is though. Higher admission standards, basketball school, mediocre facilities, and a clear stepchild to USC.
 
Buffnik said:
1. USC
2. Washington
3. Oregon
4. UCLA
5. ASU
6. Cal
7. Colorado
8. Stanford
9. Utah
10. Arizona
11. Wazzu
12. Oregon State

What has been going on at Stanford is the best that program has ever been or ever will be. Harbaugh and Shaw was like hitting the lottery twice. And while I think UCLA gets overrated by some I also see what Terry Donahue did for a long ass time there.
Click to expand...
You may be right with Stanford, but so far they've been able to remain in the national conversation for the last 12 years and I don't see them going away anytime soon.
 
SINKRATZ said:
That may be what he's saying, but that's not the job at CU.

The job is whatever it takes to meet the minimum expectations of the administration and from that perspective USC is a much harder job than CU.
Click to expand...
High expectations don't automatically mean it's a tougher job. USC will always get National Championship caliber talent, they will always have the monies, and they will always have the prestige and reputation. If you're a good coach, you'll succeed there. The same coach would not necessarily succeed elsewhere.
Duff Man said:
It is though. Higher admission standards, basketball school, mediocre facilities, and a clear stepchild to USC.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. What % of success should be attributed to recruiting, though? Because if it's more than 50%, it automatically puts UCLA in the upper half of the conference in "easiest job", whether they take a back seat to USC or not. They are still squarely in the hot bed of recruiting.
 
TSchekler said:
High expectations don't automatically mean it's a tougher job. USC will always get National Championship caliber talent, they will always have the monies, and they will always have the prestige and reputation. If you're a good coach, you'll succeed there. The same coach would not necessarily succeed elsewhere.

Fair enough. What % of success should be attributed to recruiting, though? Because if it's more than 50%, it automatically puts UCLA in the upper half of the conference in "easiest job", whether they take a back seat to USC or not. They are still squarely in the hot bed of recruiting.
Click to expand...
USC and CU have very different definitions of success. It is easier to meet the low bar expectations at CU than it is to meet USC's lofty expectations - even with the giant disparity in access to talent.

Since 1999 (Barnett's first season) CU has had 13 losing seasons compared to just 1 for USC yet both schools have fired 3 coaches over that period. USC's job is harder.
 
SINKRATZ said:
USC and CU have very different definitions of success. It is easier to meet the low bar expectations at CU than it is to meet USC's lofty expectations - even with the giant disparity in access to talent.

Since 1999 (Barnett's first season) CU has had 13 losing seasons compared to just 1 for USC yet both schools have fired 3 coaches over that period. USC's job is harder.
Click to expand...
Fanbase and administration expectations are clearly your main factors in how easy or tough a college football job is. That's fine, but that wasn't what Wilner was basing his rankings on.
 
CSU-W (Well, they suck)
Nebraksa-W (They are not ready for us, cant cover our WRs we score 50+)
UNH-W
UCLA-W (With a new coach/staff we run them out of the stadium, cant keep up with our O)
ASU-W (With an extra day of rest for this game see above)
USC-W (Dog fight as usual, we don't play well but a last second FG gets it done)
Washington-L (Afraid we get blown out here, on the road, huge let down after the USC win)
OSU-W (Home game and back on track and we take it out on them)
Arizona-W (This game on a short week, road game worries me but we pull it out)
WSU-W (We are back home, and we roll big time and set up for a final 3 game sweep)
Utah-W
Cal-W

We win the South, and play Stanford for the P12 Championship.
 
TSchekler said:
Fanbase and administration expectations are clearly your main factors in how easy or tough a college football job is. That's fine, but that wasn't what Wilner was basing his rankings on.
Click to expand...
How difficult is it to meet the expectations necessary to remain employed - that's how I look at how hard a job is. Wilner is talking about how difficult it is to win which I agree is a different discussion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top