What's new
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!

How long to turn a program around?

navybuff

Member
How long should it take to turn a program around.

Certainly it takes longer to go into a program that has "no" football culture vs. one with a winning culture.

For example:

Turning the Broncos around vs. turning the Detroit Lions around would require more patience with the Lions.

Turning a Northwestern around like Barnett did vs. an Idaho would also require more patience with at team like the Vandals.

But regardless, like the Bronco's this year. Should a new coach be able to breathe life into a program regardless of the preceding culture, immediately?
 
I think three years was enough to turn the CU program around given what CU had at the time of Hawk's hiring. Big Mac even asked us to give Hawk three years and we, the fans, have done our part.
 
With Detroit it would only take 2 to 3 good drafts. If I were them Id hire the Tuna. Look what a job he did with 2 seasons in the front office of the Dolphins.

College is a different ball of wax because you have to convince kids to come to your school.
 
look at Washington or even colorado state-

if the coach(es) know what they are doing it can happen almost overnight...
 
Generally, I'd say five years for a college program. Shorter if the coach is taking over an established program laden with talent (i.e. Oregon, ND, Tenn, etc.)

The problem with Hawk, is he has consistently WAY overpromised and under delievered. In year one, we were told "We're going to win with what we've got" and "Either you are trying to win the MNC or you are not". In '07, I believ it was, we heard the "We're so close" sideline rant. Before this season we had the now hotly contested 10 win remark.

I was not impatient the first three years. But in year four you expect to see some signs of life. When you start off getting reamed by two mid tier conference teams, you have pretty much used up your passes IMO. Add in the internet scum comment and derisive comments towards former Buffs and a "You people have never coached, so you don't know jack" attitude and you have a recipe for ill will.

The longer it takes for the team to look like it is going somewhere, the more you need to see on the back end. Right now, if Hawk doesn't make a bowl, he may be in a hole nothing short of a 10 W season can fix to reach five years and look like he's the man.
 
Generally, I'd say five years for a college program. Shorter if the coach is taking over an established program laden with talent (i.e. Oregon, ND, Tenn, etc.)

The problem with Hawk, is he has consistently WAY overpromised and under delievered. In year one, we were told "We're going to win with what we've got" and "Either you are trying to win the MNC or you are not". In '07, I believ it was, we heard the "We're so close" sideline rant. Before this season we had the now hotly contested 10 win remark.

I was not impatient the first three years. But in year four you expect to see some signs of life. When you start off getting reamed by two mid tier conference teams, you have pretty much used up your passes IMO. Add in the internet scum comment and derisive comments towards former Buffs and a "You people have never coached, so you don't know jack" attitude and you have a recipe for ill will.

The longer it takes for the team to look like it is going somewhere, the more you need to see on the back end. Right now, if Hawk doesn't make a bowl, he may be in a hole nothing short of a 10 W season can fix to reach five years and look like he's the man.
:yeahthat:Well said.
 
How long should it take to turn a program around.

Certainly it takes longer to go into a program that has "no" football culture vs. one with a winning culture.

For example:

Turning the Broncos around vs. turning the Detroit Lions around would require more patience with the Lions.

Turning a Northwestern around like Barnett did vs. an Idaho would also require more patience with at team like the Vandals.

But regardless, like the Bronco's this year. Should a new coach be able to breathe life into a program regardless of the preceding culture, immediately?

I believe that you build a program in stages. Remember also there are many different parts of a program.

First, on field performance - regardless of the talent you start getting your players to play solid, disciplined football. The also have to be coached up to play above their talent and with intensity - see CSU - I think that is a lot of what Fairchild is doing.

Second, you have to keep improving the talent. Every year you get a little better and improve your recruiting pipeline into the recruiting hotbeds - see North Carolina.

Third, you have to consistently get a little better each year.
 
well as soon as his son is done here we will have way better qb play for sure...but until then we just have to deal with what we got and right now we have nothing because all this staff does is blah blah blah lie after lie all our players are going to ucla and if i was scott i would be joining my uncle cause there not ever gonna let the kid play period...
 
I think three years was enough to turn the CU program around given what CU had at the time of Hawk's hiring. Big Mac even asked us to give Hawk three years and we, the fans, have done our part.

Really? Who was our QB when Hawkins took over? Who were the WRs?

I think you give a guy 5 years, but you want to see progress, and you want to see intelligent decisions. We've seen neither on a consistent basis, which is the only reason I'd cut him off at 4 (providing that trend continues).
 
How long is Hawkins head coach? Would like Dan to turn it around but not likely. IMO At least three years after Dan.
 
2 years most places.

3 if you're at a school where you can't take a lot of JUCOs and marginal academic qualifiers (Notre Dame, UCLA, Michigan, etc.).

4 if you have the same academic issues as the 3-year situation, but you're not in a recruiting hotbed and have committed to redshirting as many recruits as possible to develop them and build the right foundation for the future (Wake Forest, Wisconsin, Colorado, etc.).
 
I think it really depends. As much I'm not inclined to defend Hawkins right now, he was trying to make major changes to the culture of the football program. You essentially have to tear it down and build it back up again and that takes time, especially when talent is lacking and I do think talent is as much an issue for us right now as scheme or game day coaching, maybe more.

We've had a grand total of 5 players drafted the last 3 years and those represent Barney's last 3 classes. 2 of those were 7th round picks and 1 was a kicker. Also none of them were offensive players.

I'm as tired as anyone of Hawkin's BS and 14-26, but you have to admit he's been standing on the less talented sideline for the majority of those games. I went back through the results and, trying to be as objective as I could, tried to see how many wins he *should* have, based strictly on talent and I came up with something like 17 or 18.
 
I believe that you build a program in stages. Remember also there are many different parts of a program.

First, on field performance - regardless of the talent you start getting your players to play solid, disciplined football. The also have to be coached up to play above their talent and with intensity - see CSU - I think that is a lot of what Fairchild is doing.

Second, you have to keep improving the talent. Every year you get a little better and improve your recruiting pipeline into the recruiting hotbeds - see North Carolina.

Third, you have to consistently get a little better each year.


Well we missed two out of your three stages. At least this year the on field performance hasn't been anything to write home about. Unless your letter is a rant.

We took a step back last year from two years ago, and this year is looking to be another step back.
 
I think you need to give a new coach the opportunity to bring at least one full class through "his" system and have a starting junior or senior at QB that the coach recruited. Some coaches are able to get things moving in the right direction quicker with a solid system (see Nick Saben) while others take a longer depending on where the program's talent level was when the new regime took over (see Ron Zook).

Zook is just starting to feel some heat in Illinois for that reason. He has a 4 star senior QB in Juice Williams, a veteren solid defense that he recruited, and outstanding skill players like Arrelious Benn. Yet Illinois went 5-7 last season and got beat up by a talented, but still very young Missouri team to start this season.

As a CSU fan and outside observer my opinion is that Hawkins probably derserves one more year to get it moving in the right direction. Cody will be a senior, Scott will be a junior, and the line up front will continue to improve throughout the year and into next season. Plus CU would have at least given the head coach one fully recruited class to in which to take the field with. At that point I think you can make a pretty informed judgment about what level Hawkins may or may not get the program.
 
Last edited:
As a CSU fan and outside observer my opinion is that Hawkins probably derserves one more year to get it moving in the right direction.


You'd like that wouldn't you. :lol: Trying to sneak in one more win against the Buffs. Clever dog you.
 
I think you need to give a new coach the opportunity to bring at least one full class through "his" system and have a starting junior or senior at QB that the coach recruited. Some coaches are able to get things moving in the right direction quicker with a solid system (see Nick Saben) while others take a longer depending on where the program's talent level was when the new regime took over (see Ron Zook).

Zook is just starting to feel some heat in Illinois for that reason. He has a 4 star senior QB in Juice Williams, a veteren solid defense that he recruited, and outstanding skill players like Arrelious Benn. Yet Illinois went 5-7 last season and got beat up by a talented, but still very young Missouri team to start this season.

As a CSU fan and outside observer my opinion is that Hawkins probably derserves one more year to get it moving in the right direction. Cody will be a senior, Scott will be a junior, and the line up front will continue to improve throughout the year and into next season. Plus CU would have at least given the head coach one fully recruited class to take the field under one head coach. At that point I think you can make a pretty informed judgment about what level Hawkins may or may not get the program.

Another year of watching the overwhelming bulk of the pass completions be of the five yard curl variety might make me hurl....
 
How many more years does Juice Box have on the contract?

That is how long it takes to turn the program around.
 
You'd like that wouldn't you. :lol: Trying to sneak in one more win against the Buffs. Clever dog you.

Actually quite the opposite. I think CSU's chances of winning next season would only increase if CU was breaking in another head coach and system. Combine that with the player transfers that almost always occur when the coach who recruited them is let go and I think my position is actually against my own interests.
 
You'd like that wouldn't you. :lol: Trying to sneak in one more win against the Buffs. Clever dog you.
Why in heck did you say I posted that ---I should negative REP you calling me a CSU fan......:cry:



Terry Frei says five years. He has some close experience, being the son of a former college head coach.

I don't think it is a set number of years. You have to constantly evaluate the situation and when you see it is not working you take action. Look at Calahan at Nebraska - they knew it was not going to work out.

Hawkins challenge is to show something of substance in the program. Right now he is delivering nothing.
 
How long should it take to turn a program around.

Certainly it takes longer to go into a program that has "no" football culture vs. one with a winning culture.

For example:

Turning the Broncos around vs. turning the Detroit Lions around would require more patience with the Lions.

Turning a Northwestern around like Barnett did vs. an Idaho would also require more patience with at team like the Vandals.

But regardless, like the Bronco's this year. Should a new coach be able to breathe life into a program regardless of the preceding culture, immediately?
When Hawk was hired I thought he should have 5 years. We were in quite a hole and are still digging out as the cupboard was greatly depleted but I also figured that progress should be seen even though there would be some apparent steps backward at times. I do think Hawk has brought in better talent but it's still young as he has only had 3 classes he recruited.
 
Look. Hawkins inherited a program that had put stupid restrictions on recruiting for the two or three years prior to him taking over. So, first, he took over a program that had already suffered a talent hit. Second, he took over a program which is one of the top two conferences in college football. He happened to hit the Big XII just when Missouri and Kansas were peaking. Not to mention that it is much more difficult to recruit Texas and California than it was even 10 years ago. Under these circumstances, almost any, if not all, coaches would require a good five years. Add to that the fact that Colorado has that stupid Tabor ammendment which absolutely makes it difficult to attract and/or keep the top assistants, and you have a serious problem. Oh, and don't forget that, while receding, CU still has the stigma of "the scandal" years.

What CU does have going for it is that it is a great school on the best campus in the Big XII. CU also has some good recognition as an elite program with pretty good media exposure.
 
Look. Hawkins inherited a program that had put stupid restrictions on recruiting for the two or three years prior to him taking over. So, first, he took over a program that had already suffered a talent hit. Second, he took over a program which is one of the top two conferences in college football. He happened to hit the Big XII just when Missouri and Kansas were peaking. Not to mention that it is much more difficult to recruit Texas and California than it was even 10 years ago. Under these circumstances, almost any, if not all, coaches would require a good five years. Add to that the fact that Colorado has that stupid Tabor ammendment which absolutely makes it difficult to attract and/or keep the top assistants, and you have a serious problem. Oh, and don't forget that, while receding, CU still has the stigma of "the scandal" years.

What CU does have going for it is that it is a great school on the best campus in the Big XII. CU also has some good recognition as an elite program with pretty good media exposure.

You kids get off Hawkins' lawn, dagnabit!:smile2:
 
Look. Hawkins inherited a program that had put stupid restrictions on recruiting for the two or three years prior to him taking over. So, first, he took over a program that had already suffered a talent hit. Second, he took over a program which is one of the top two conferences in college football. He happened to hit the Big XII just when Missouri and Kansas were peaking. Not to mention that it is much more difficult to recruit Texas and California than it was even 10 years ago. Under these circumstances, almost any, if not all, coaches would require a good five years. Add to that the fact that Colorado has that stupid Tabor ammendment which absolutely makes it difficult to attract and/or keep the top assistants, and you have a serious problem. Oh, and don't forget that, while receding, CU still has the stigma of "the scandal" years.

What CU does have going for it is that it is a great school on the best campus in the Big XII. CU also has some good recognition as an elite program with pretty good media exposure.

Even if you are short on talent I still want to see the team play solid, disciplined football. Take Bill Mallory as an example, he did not recruit well but he was a good coach. His teams would play tough and would beat teams when they made mistakes.

I hate the argument that you are trying to make and it really rings hollow to me. It totally ignores the fact that CU was totally handled 2 weeks in a row by teams that have recruited no where the talent CU has - the talent excuse does not cut it. CSU is lucky to get a 3 star recruit much less a 4 star. They started an entirely new defensive line, were without their best olineman and had a QB who had thrown 5 passes in college games before this season. How does the any of your argument apply to CSU or Toledo games?
 
Last edited:
Even if you are short on talent I still want to see the team play solid, disciplined football. Take Bill Mallory as an example, he did not recruit well but he was a good coach. His teams would play tough and would beat teams when they made mistakes.

I hate the argument that you are trying to make and it really rings hollow to me. It totally ignores the fact that CU was totally handled 2 weeks in a row by teams that have recruited no where the talent CU has - the talent excuse does not cut it. CSU is lucky to get a 3 star recruit much less a 4 star. They started an entirely new offensive line, were without their best olineman and had a QB who had thrown 5 passes in college games before this season. How does the any of your argument apply to CSU or Toledo games?


I hope your not talking about CSU here. The Ewes have more combined starts by the O-lineman as a group than any other team in the country. That is CSU's strength.

I'm not arguing that as a whole team, our talent should be and is better than theirs. Just pointing out the line thing. And i agree that DBT's point doesn't justify losing to CSU and Toledo. He can save that for BigXII losses.
 
The team just doesn't look better than they did 2 years ago and that's what bothers me.

On the subject of assistant coach contracts, could CU get around this by having each assistant contract directly with the head coach instead of the school? For example, CU agrees to pay a head coach $4 million per year, but won't hire any assistants. The head coach then hires the assistants and pays them out of his salary. Then at least the assistants could get longer term deals because they'd get whatever the coach gets. I'm sure there's plenty of complications I'm missing here, but wanted to ask the question.
 
I hope your not talking about CSU here. The Ewes have more combined starts by the O-lineman as a group than any other team in the country. That is CSU's strength.

I'm not arguing that as a whole team, our talent should be and is better than theirs. Just pointing out the line thing. And i agree that DBT's point doesn't justify losing to CSU and Toledo. He can save that for BigXII losses.

I meant defensive line... sorry typed that too fast.
 
Back
Top