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!
Buffs complete 2015, 2016 schedules
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
1 game with a FCS/Div II school is fine. Filling out a NC schedule with FCS schools is what ksJuco is known for. I hope this practice doesn't continue as I don't want the Buffs to get a ksjuco image
+1 There is no consolation in SOS if you miss a bowl game. These are games that will help us get a bowl appearance streak going.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
Doesn't our conference schedule automatically bump UP our SOS? It's a tough run through the conference.
I see this as the top reason why CU should not be scheduling the 'C' teams. I see re-creating/reinforcing the brand through playing football on TV as a key step in improving the Buff's profile/national perception. Even if we get our asses kicked, playing Michigan does more for the program than beating the snot out of Nichols State and UNC.
OTOH, I do think the argument about improving chances to get to 6 wins and bowl eligible as compelling, however. Playing in the bowls (on TV) and getting the extra practices is big, not only for recruiting but for maintaining fan interest.
Agree, SOS isn't really a consideration at this point.
Summary: it's in the best interest of the program to find balance in the non-conf schedule. 'Niks articulation of an A-B-C non conf schedule or A-B-B is close to my feelings. I'd leave FCS teams off the schedule altogether, with the exception of a UNC on a periodic basis. As a fan who enjoys attending college football games moreso than about anything else, my main emphasis is on maximizing the quality and quantity of games that I attend ==> a balance of home/home series with BCS teams and and home-only games with lower-tier opponents, meets my desires and the goals of the program. So, i'll bitch about Nichols State on the schedule (lowers quality), but it's one more game I get to attend next year than if the Buffs scheduled all BCS teams (improves quantity).
holding....
Do you honestly believe getting kicked by a upper BCS team is better than a win? That's just not true.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
I don't get the worry about "strength of schedule." This is a -.500 football team over the past 5 years. Why does SOS matter to a team that has a losing record? You would rather lose to a great team than beat a ****ty team? Worry about strength of schedule when Colorado gets back to the point of competing for national championships (if ever).
Playing Bethune Cookman in 2013 didn't hinder FSU's BCS championship run. Nor did their game against Idaho.
Even though they played Arkansas State and Western Carolina, Auburn somehow made it to the 2013 BCS championship game.
Incredibly, in 2012, Alabama won the BCS title game after playing games against Western Kentucky and Western Alabama.
Alabama also won the BCS title game for the 2011 season even though they played Kent State, North Texas and Georgia Southern.
Auburn won the BCS title following the 2010 season, with cupcakes on the schedule of Arkansas State, Louisiana Monroe, and Tennessee Chattanooga.
In other words- strength of schedule is completely irrelevant in college football. Except to the snobs who "want to see a quality opponent" but then bitch when the team loses.
Playing Bethune Cookman in 2013 didn't hinder FSU's BCS championship run. Nor did their game against Idaho.
Even though they played Arkansas State and Western Carolina, Auburn somehow made it to the 2013 BCS championship game.
Incredibly, in 2012, Alabama won the BCS title game after playing games against Western Kentucky and Western Alabama.
Alabama also won the BCS title game for the 2011 season even though they played Kent State, North Texas and Georgia Southern.
Auburn won the BCS title following the 2010 season, with cupcakes on the schedule of Arkansas State, Louisiana Monroe, and Tennessee Chattanooga.
In other words- strength of schedule is completely irrelevant in college football. Except to the snobs who "want to see a quality opponent" but then bitch when the team loses.
agreed. Why can't we just be good enough to play decent teams and win some-lose some?? Patience is one thing, but ****
For a team in the position we expect CU to be for the next few years, yes, I honestly believe that losing to Michigan on national TV accomplishes more for recruiting, fan interest and long term brand growth than does winning a non-televised game against Nichols State. The win over NSU gives CU "one more towards bowl eligibility", which has value in the short term. The loss to UM gives CU TV exposure, fan excitement over a big game, recruit excitement over a big time schedule (and in the away year, the opportunity to play at a historic stadium).
For a team like Alabama who is expected to be competing for a playoff spot, an easy win is more important than a nationally televised game against a non-conf BCS team. They already will get the TV exposure and don't need the selling point for recruits of a "big time schedule".
63 days
:nod:
My hope is that things change to make it relevant again. It would be good for the game and good for the fans. I'd much rather see a quality opponent every week for every team.
There would need to be some fundamental changes to the post-season structure for this to happen. There would be some fundamental changes to NCAA rules (such as get rid of redshirting to give 5 years of eligibility to all 85 guys so teams had the depth to deal with more grueling schedules).
But it would make for a more entertaining product that would lead to increased revenues and attendance. Casual fans don't want to see Florida State play Bethune-Cookman, but would be interested in showing up to see FSU blow out a weak D1 opponent that was seen as more of a peer institution.
I disagree. I'm all about the model that Snyder used to build KSU and Leach used to build TTU.
Spot me 3 wins and make a bowl game right now.
Those extra bowl practices mean so much for recruiting and player development.
And a higher percentage of folks who look at a team's record (media, recruits and fans) do a cursory look at W/L without looking into their SOS.
No. Wins > all
Recruits are looking at the overall record, they won't be impressed, or give two ****s for the most part, because we went and played tOSU but got butt ****ed. 9 of the 12/13 games are against BCS teams, it's not like the schedule is a MWC schedule.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
What will help recruiting, fan interest and long term brand growth is GETTING TO A BOWL GAME. And not just once every four or five years. But EVERY YEAR for four or five years.
Win or lose, every college football game is televised anymore. Colorado will either be on ABC, ESPN, Fox, or the Pac-12 Network EVERY SINGLE GAME this season, regardless of whether CU is 0-12 or 12-0. So they quality of the opponent is completely irrelevant from a television standpoint - CU will be televised regardless.
CU needs to show FORWARD MOMENTUM and that can only be done by putting together some WINNING SEASONS. Nobody cares who the Buffs played if they finish 4-8 every year. I guarantee you, no one is going to look back and say "Colorado lost to Michigan 28-21, Florida State 33-3, and Alabama 35-7" if the Buffs go 4-8. Just like no one is going to look back and say "Colorado beat Middle Tennessee State, Idaho State, and Platte Valley Community College if the Buffs go 8-4 and play in a bowl game.
Losing badly is never better than a solid win, no matter the level of competition.
Get beat up on TV on a regular basis and you become seen as a loser. On the other hand playing an FCS team and a Sun Belt team each year doesn't seem to hurt the standing of the top SEC teams or B1G teams who do it on a regular basis.
Until we are good enough that we can count a few PAC 12 games as gimmees we need a couple of those games each year that allow us to pad the record. These games also give the players a chance to have one of those laugher games where the starters can pad some stats and that the subs can get some significant time to brag about to friends and family.
We do also desperately need some bowl games and the advantages that come with them.
Get beat up on TV on a regular basis and you become seen as a loser. On the other hand playing an FCS team and a Sun Belt team each year doesn't seem to hurt the standing of the top SEC teams or B1G teams who do it on a regular basis.
Until we are good enough that we can count a few PAC 12 games as gimmees we need a couple of those games each year that allow us to pad the record. These games also give the players a chance to have one of those laugher games where the starters can pad some stats and that the subs can get some significant time to brag about to friends and family.
We do also desperately need some bowl games and the advantages that come with them.
It has
I would argue that the Scott/XJ class was our best class under Tad. Which means we didnt carry momentum into last year and we are not looking good with our top targets this year.
We also weren't able to find a guard that year. Last year was a very good 2-person class. This year, let's wait and see. Our top targets were pretty elite. Tad just wants to find 2 shooters who are able to play his defense.
Im not saying that class was perfect but it was the highest rated.
1. Win now and get to a bowl
2. Build some solid rep as a non-loser
3. Improve recruiting
4. Become more competitive in the Pac
5. Schedule stronger non-league matchups
6. Profit
2. Build some solid rep as a non-loser
3. Improve recruiting
4. Become more competitive in the Pac
5. Schedule stronger non-league matchups
6. Profit
Is that a serious question?
until the Pac12 stops playing 9 league games get used to it.
Yep
Please explain sensei
Are you honestly asking if recent success of the basketball team has led to better recruiting?
yes how many times do I have to say the same thing. I am being serious. Our highest rated class was in 2012 when we landed Scott and XJ, since then we have made the tournament two more times and had lower ranked classes with lower ranked players since then and have not signed a consensus top 100 player since then. Even this year we are striking out on our top targets and may not get a top 100 player again. So how is continually making the dance helping recruiting?
Edit: how did i forget Dom?
Maybe we get 2 top 100 recruits this year.
Last edited:
So, you agree that our basketball recruiting has improved? Just want to make sure. Cause' yeah, Dom is a pretty good player.
I'm still not 100% sold on the 2013 class, though. I have high hopes that they'll all take a big step up this year. Maybe being on a team where they weren't asked to do too much kept them from showing a lot. I don't know. But we definitely need Fletcher, Hopkins and Thomas to step up big time. I still scratch my head on signing King. I don't know what Tad's thought process on that was.
My concern is the time span here...