Really good post
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!
A quick review of Mac's job performance
- Thread starter Bufffan68
- Start date
Really good post
Until the last three sentences.
And so far I think this has been the entire theme of his time at CU. We haven't won games, that's frustrating. What would be even more frustrating is to have a short term boost of wins, maybe even a lower end bowl game, and then have the program fall apart because the foundation to sustain it isn't there.
I believe that in time M2 is going to be successful in terms of wins. Even if he isn't I know that whoever follows him will find a much more manageable situation than M2 did.
That said his work has to start translating into some wins soon or it won't continue. I think that 4-5 this upcoming season is a reasonable expectation with continued progress in the win column in following seasons.
About Baer, I threw the question out there only from a standpoint of the win at all cost mentality. I agree that in this situation the best bet was to let Baer have his fair opportunity to sink or swim. I am certain that M2 communicated expectations to him over the course of the season and that he wasn't entirely surprised at the end result. And yes, it is hard to see how we aren't better off with our new DC than we were with the old one.
I didn't think you did, but I wasn't sure.
Great post btw, completely agree. It's like he handicapped himself with that start and is just now getting to fixing it. Not good moves. Hopefully it's not too late.
What do you mean "too little, too late"? Saying that sounds like you believe there is some sort of deadline and tangible W/L record that needed to be reached in order for MM to keep his job through '16. If that's the case, what is it?
The only way this gets settled between those most discouraged by current direction, and those who think he has Buffs on track for eventual success, is on the field in 2015. I tbelieve MM has CU on an upward path, and will eventually succeed (improvement incrementally in 2015 into 2016). He is a proven winner. But I do understand given some changes in direction per players and coaches, why doubts still linger.
But win total being 4 or 5 in 2014, versus how we ended up, would not change my perspective on where the program stands in terms of direction, and likelihood of eventual success under MM.
(*yes I am pissed we lost those games, hate to lose.)
But win total being 4 or 5 in 2014, versus how we ended up, would not change my perspective on where the program stands in terms of direction, and likelihood of eventual success under MM.
(*yes I am pissed we lost those games, hate to lose.)
Because you don't suddenly think "holy crap what were we doing with recruiting" after you've already recruited ~60 scholarship players. If MM only gets 4 years then I am of the belief that it is "too little too late."
I'm quite happy MM went out of his comfort zone with Leavitt/Tumpkin but these hires would have been nice at the beginning of his term when Bohnhead gave him the ability to hire basically whoever he wanted.
I honestly think if MM could have a re-do he would have done things drastically different, which would have been great for CU
Completely agree with the bolded. I have to imagine he spent most of this past season kicking himself.
Uhhhh........ isn't it obvious? No bowl game by the end of year 4 and he gets fired.
Very good points. Spending good money on Baer and Neinas was a bad call...we have one of the larger budgets in the PAC12 for assistants, so why not get the best?
Playing devil's advocate, I could see Mac thinking: that he has to come in to Boulder and quickly make a difference, so why not keep the same staff who knows his system and was successful at SJSU? Sticking with guys he knows lets him focus on other things than getting people up to speed. I can also see him honoring the scholarships as a matter of integrity. But regardless of his motivation, his choices have slowed down the recovery process of this program.
I am on board with Mac, but am a little disturbed with the points in your post and also disturbed by lack of depth at LB. Here's hoping it's not too little too late...but I see RG keeping Mac at least through 2016 unless the bottom falls out in 2015.
Just curious cause I've seen you post this multiple times, but what is the reasoning behind the notion in the first bold? Are you referring to some of the previous coaches on staff and their recruiting efforts (lack thereof)?
As far as "bowl game or bust", I think there's going to be more to a decision to fire MM than whether they made a bowl game or not. It's definitely possible and I'm not really trying to argue with you about it, but I could easily see a team on the field getting 5 wins, recruiting slowly gaining momentum and Rick George feeling they are headed in the right direction and not wanting to completely start over with yet another coaching staff being fired.
*One caveat to this is possibly the Jim Leavitt factor and whether RG wants to promote him and retain the majority of the staff.
You're not playing devil's advocate. That is exactly what happened.
And recruiting hasn't changed. If Leavitt or Tumpkin land some solid P5 players in 2016, they also have a much different program to sell in 2016 than 2014. Was always a process.
89BUFF89
Well-Known Member
Wonder if the narrative would be different if they had won 4 games last season instead of 2? Did being so close in quite a few games embolden HCMM to make the off-season changes he did knowing just a slight improvement in defense and turnovers would have resulted in a few more wins? Maybe bringing in Leavitt gives HCMM the confidence he can spend most of his time in other areas between now and Sep.?
I do think that Mac has learned alot after two seasons, and we are seeing some decisions based upon that. He has learned to be more cutthroat, probably because he can envision a future where he is unemployed. But let's not forget how bad 2012 was. Jim Leavitt does not come here (nor does Bohn approve it) in February 2013, nor do we get looked at then by as many quality candidates as we just did for DC. We don't get into some of the recruits' homes then that we get in now (facilities), in fact we get laughed out of those homes in February 2013. There is a progression to this, and it's not like Mac had all of the tools he has today at his disposal when he was hired. The guy has been building staff continuity, building pipelines, and rebuilding the perception of competence that was annihilated by Bohn/Hawkins/Embree. We weren't just going to suddenly jump into a bowl game or pull in great recruits.
I viewed 2016 as "do or die" for a while, not so sure anymore. I could envision MacIntyre getting a 5th year without a bowl game, but I assume a lot of factors will be evaluated, not pure W/L record. But then I also don't think a bowl game in year five automatically saves MacIntyre either.
Where do you get this stuff?
Probably so.
I do think 2016 is a bowl year. It has to be. That will be a senior dominated team. We'll lose some very productive seniors (some with NFL potential) off the 2015 roster (Spruce, Nembot, Powell, Tupou, Crawley, Solis, Bell), but it looks like the recruiting has been set up with JUCO additions that anticipate those losses. Put it another way: it's only a 9-man senior class, so they damn well be able to replace that level of graduated attrition.
I also wanted to address some of the other comments in this and other threads.
Improvement is not usually linear.
We could see more wins in 2015, a bowl in 2016 and then the team miss a bowl in 2017 before breaking through again in 2018. That's pretty normal.
We may very well see that the program solidifies itself in the plateau or being a mediocre team that challenges for bowls but doesn't challenge for the divisional title hunt... and be at that level for half a decade before taking the next step.
I am glad that people get excited, but this program is just getting back to its feet. I think we're setting ourselves up for disappointment and frustration if we get in the mindset of "this year we made a bowl, so that means next year we make a Top 25 appearance at some point, the year after we spend the season ranked, and after that we're poised for Top 10 or 15 with a good shot at the Pac-12 Championship Game". If it happens like that -- Hallelujah! -- no one will enjoy the ride more than I will, but it's an unrealistic expectation.
Good post. I've thought of it as do or die, but other things...including the AD's financial situation, will be taken into account. But with a favorable home schedule, a ton of upperclassmen and 4 years in his system, I would see no bowl game as a very big failure.
Good stuff. I just don't think it's black and white (W/L) when evaluating the "state of the program" at CU. With such a massive rebuild needed, the entire CU institution has finally (seemingly) realized the need for this program to get back to being successful. That means a long rebuild and building the foundation of the program which starts with the administration, AD, coaching staff, boosters and facilities. Now that all of the main foundation pieces are in place, I just can't see RG pulling the plug on one of those 4-5 pieces by firing the coaching staff solely because a bowl game wasn't attained in these next 2 years. There will have to be more to it, behind the scenes, than strictly the W/L record.
Absolutely.
It's a complete 180 from how Bohn was. Bohn was about the pageantry and getting as many fannies into the stadium as possible (profitably or not).
RG is showing himself about maximizing value of each customer to drive profitability and then growing the numbers through improvement in on-field performance.
As a business guy, I am strongly in the RG camp on this stuff. I do think he can and should do more on the pageantry and student outreach side, though. As I've said, that's what makes college sports special and different. Without the students, the band and all that pageantry surrounding a game all we are watching is a minor league game. Not a lot of fun in that.
I can see RG being somewhat patient for a while longer and being fairly hands-off (not Mike Bohn level though) as he gets the facilities project squared away and growing the endowment, but there will be a point in time when that changes.
As a local high school assistant coach, I had the pleasure of meeting and having a brief, 1 on 1 conversation with HCMM during one of our pregames this past season (he was there scouting 2 of our players and a couple kids from our opponent). It was nothing earth shattering, but he went out of his way to say hi and carry a conversation with me during warm ups, which I thought was pretty cool. Along with being a likable guy, he is making a very concerted effort to develop a relationship with the local high school head coaches; something his predecessors never did. I can see why he is liked and respected in the coaching community and he definitely made me more of a supporter of his but there will also come a day when that support starts to wane, if the W/L doesn't improve. I've just managed my expectations more than some and don't have a tangible W/L number or deadline attached to it.
We tend to expect doom and talk about assumptions of what bridges we'll be crossing if/when things turn sour.
I'd like to look at it the other way.
All this likability and relationship groundwork that HCMM has going for him is going to pay off in a HUGE way when he gets this program winning. Recruits will be much more open to a CU offer / message once the winning happens and their coaches are going to be great advocates because they'll feel very confident when advising their kids that HCMM is one of the good ones.
I think the only hard deadline that you cannot really ignore is the five year mark. If you are not confident you have the right coach at that point in time, no options should be off the table. That does not mean changes cannot or should not occur before that time, but five years is a pretty important benchmark for any program.
It's just cool talking to some my high school players and hearing them call him "Coach Mac" instead of "CU's coach" (which some of our past players did referring to JE). There has just been no real connection between high school athletes in CO and the CU football program until MM and his staff came to Boulder.
Along the same lines, it pains me to show up to practice and see a number of players wearing Oregon, Stanford, SC, AZ, Nebraska, etc. shirts under their pads. When I would ask some of them why they like "X Team", it's always a response something like, "I don't know, I just kind of grew up liking them" or "Their unis are sick". I think HCMM and his staff are making headway and bringing some of the allure back to CU, but it won't fully "be cool" for the average high school athlete to wear CU gear until they start winning.