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!

Interesting observation...

HotRack

Rez BubbleHead
Club Member
The contract lengths of the newly hired coaches..

Strong - Louisville - 5 years
Taggart - WKU - 5 years
London - Virginia - 5 years
Kelly - ND - terms not yet disclosed but rumor is 5 years

Now, yes, Hawk did get an extension, but does there seem to be a paradigm shift from the "4-year" plan to the "5-year" plan?

Was our illustrious adminstration ahead of the curve (tongue in cheek)?:smile2:

Seriously, though, maybe it does take 5-years to really get something going unless you walk in to a UT, Florida type job. Previous examples - Missouri, Kansas...

Thoughts? Uh, oh...was that a juicebox I just drank from my lunchpail?
 
It's possible, but I would think that it is more of a "market value" than some known term length to "rebuild" a program.

Certainly the coaches want to get the longest term possible, while the admin wants the shortest term to "prove" themselves.

I think the 5-year deal is bent towards the recruiting angle more than anything else, as in incoming recruits can "guarantee" that the coach will be there for their school career (at least for the all important 1st class).
 
Thoughts? Uh, oh...was that a juicebox I just drank from my lunchpail?


got yours right here.

lp-voyage1.JPG
 
The contract lengths of the newly hired coaches..

Strong - Louisville - 5 years
Taggart - WKU - 5 years
London - Virginia - 5 years
Kelly - ND - terms not yet disclosed but rumor is 5 years

Now, yes, Hawk did get an extension, but does there seem to be a paradigm shift from the "4-year" plan to the "5-year" plan?

Was our illustrious adminstration ahead of the curve (tongue in cheek)?:smile2:

Seriously, though, maybe it does take 5-years to really get something going unless you walk in to a UT, Florida type job. Previous examples - Missouri, Kansas...

Thoughts? Uh, oh...was that a juicebox I just drank from my lunchpail?

That wasn't apple juice...
 
The contract lengths of the newly hired coaches..

Strong - Louisville - 5 years
Taggart - WKU - 5 years
London - Virginia - 5 years
Kelly - ND - terms not yet disclosed but rumor is 5 years

Now, yes, Hawk did get an extension, but does there seem to be a paradigm shift from the "4-year" plan to the "5-year" plan?

Was our illustrious adminstration ahead of the curve (tongue in cheek)?:smile2:

Seriously, though, maybe it does take 5-years to really get something going unless you walk in to a UT, Florida type job. Previous examples - Missouri, Kansas...

Thoughts? Uh, oh...was that a juicebox I just drank from my lunchpail?

Most coaching contracts are 5 years and have been for a long time. Barnett's original and renewal were both 5 years. Same with coaches at other schools.
 
5 years make sense because that first year is really figuring out who was left in the cupboard, what they can do, what holes you need to fill in the upcoming classes, implementing your style and your playbook.

See, I really think Hawkins might get it right in year 5. I know it seems unlikely, but he really does have some talent lining up in 2010 ---

mo' koolaid anyone?
 
5 years make sense because that first year is really figuring out who was left in the cupboard, what they can do, what holes you need to fill in the upcoming classes, implementing your style and your playbook.

See, I really think Hawkins might get it right in year 5. I know it seems unlikely, but he really does have some talent lining up in 2010 ---

mo' koolaid anyone?

Cherry, please!:smile2:

I'm so torn on this AJ, on the one hand I agree with you when I look at Mizzery and KU and what Pinkel and Mangino pulled off in their fifth year.

Then I remember what I saw on the field this year at CU with the lack of preparedness/execution (all the stuff we've :deadhorse:) and have a hard time beliving that can change.

Not sure if anyone here has inside "scoop" on fans' complaints at MU and KU, but I'd be interested to know if they had the same gripes we have right now.
 
5 years make sense because that first year is really figuring out who was left in the cupboard, what they can do, what holes you need to fill in the upcoming classes, implementing your style and your playbook.

See, I really think Hawkins might get it right in year 5. I know it seems unlikely, but he really does have some talent lining up in 2010 ---

mo' koolaid anyone?

http://static.flickr.com/3158/2874647014_186c3f6b68.jpg
 
Not sure if anyone here has inside "scoop" on fans' complaints at MU and KU, but I'd be interested to know if they had the same gripes we have right now.

Not scoop but I know some people close to the Missouri program that say Pinkel was gone if he didn't win the bowl game one year (South Carolina Independence Bowl I think).
This second hand info from the Barnett interview but this timeline also coincides with something Barnett said about recruiting Jeremy Maclin. I guess he was close to coming to CU and Barnett told him to go to Missouri because it looked like he was going to be the next coach there.
 
Cherry, please!:smile2:

I'm so torn on this AJ, on the one hand I agree with you when I look at Mizzery and KU and what Pinkel and Mangino pulled off in their fifth year.

And don't forget Zona stuck with Mike Stoops after four losing seasons. His 5th year they were much improved and this year he almost won the Pac 10 title.
 
And don't forget Zona stuck with Mike Stoops after four losing seasons. His 5th year they were much improved and this year he almost won the Pac 10 title.


That's not entirely true. Arizona went 6-6 in Stoops' 3rd season, 5-7 in his 4th season, and 8-5 in his 5th season.
 
That's not entirely true. Arizona went 6-6 in Stoops' 3rd season, 5-7 in his 4th season, and 8-5 in his 5th season.

Yeah ... okay. But did UA go to a bowl game in that 6-6 season? I don't pretend to remember. But if they had (if they didn't) they might have lost that game in been in the same boat CU was in Hawk's second year ('07).

CU went to a bowl game in Hawk's second season and lost a tough game to an Alabama team that would compete for a national title the next season (after spotting them 24 points in the first half IIRC). That's the only reason Hawk had a "losing season" that year. During the REGULAR season he and CU went 6-6, beat OU at home and TT on the road. They should never have lost to ISU after being up 21-0 at the half ... but they did. The fact is that CU had a pretty decent season in Hawk's second year ... and could have an better one but for some bad coaching decisions and player mistakes.

The point is that M. Stoops was given a chance and has shown some excellent progress ... but it didn't really start to manifest until his 5th season. I'm not saying that Hawk will necessarily be able to take advantage of the "reprieve" he recently received ... but I hope he does ... and there is precedent for success that comes after giving a HC at least 5 years to install and run his program.
 
Hawk may have success in 2010....we all (I think) are pulling for him. The problem I have with the guy is his BS comments to the media, his lack of accountability for his horrible performance, his horrendous game decisions, and his apparent lack of respect for the tradition of the program. If he wins, then who cares about that stuff. I just doubt that he will, based on past performance.

I don't know anything about M Stoops, but I doubt that he followed Danny's path (as described above) in his first 4 years....
 
Back
Top