"Fan Appreciation Month" at CU (aka, We don't want Folsom empty on nat'l tv for Utah)

[Buffalo Brad]

I don't hit many Sackygates, but isn't it the northeast corner?

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Moved due to police harassment.

 

[Buffnik]

Moved due to police harassment.

Sorry, guys. I thought that was a clothing optional area.

 

[krom]

Don't worry, it won't be much longer before we're out of the Top 25 all time

With Washington, Florida, and Clemson right behind us in all-time wins, we should just about be out of the top 25 all-time by the end of next season.

 

[BinaryBuff]

With Washington, Florida, and Clemson right behind us in all-time wins, we should just about be out of the top 25 all-time by the end of next season.

 

[Tractor]

The records of mediocre teams -- those that, on average, won about 50 percent of their games in the year prior to replacing a coach -- became worse.

Cool fact bro, but that's not us.

Let's compare apples to apples. How many first year head coaches who have first time coordinators for both offense and defense got replaced after winning 4 games in 2 years? Of those coaches, how did the new coaches do? Get back to me with that, and I'll be more impressed.

BTW: Why are we asking CU professors and Loyola professors? Couldn't get Stanford or Texas professors to help us with this study?

 

[Rick James]

The psych warfare continues, in today's CU-Boulder Today:

Now on the New York Times.

About 3/4 of the way down.

They may be correct in some fashion, but I'm still glad we made the move.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Now on the New York Times.

About 3/4 of the way down.

They may be correct in some fashion, but I'm still glad we made the move.

Still trying to unravel that headline.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Here the article.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/50014754

 

[Dark Bohner]

Here the article.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/50014754

I think the point of the article is that lots of schools pay big money to fire coaches, and historically there is a lot of chance on any new hire, so the results of doing this are certainly not proven to always work. Big surprise.

 

[somebody]

I think the point of the article is that lots of schools pay big money to fire coaches, and historically there is a lot of chance on any new hire, so the results of doing this are certainly not proven to always work. Big surprise.

It fails to consider both sides of the argument. Sometimes you need to fire a coach, for example, if he has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that is not fit for the job.

 

[Uncle Ken]

I think the point of the article is that lots of schools pay big money to fire coaches, and historically there is a lot of chance on any new hire, so the results of doing this are certainly not proven to always work. Big surprise.

It uses a lot of words like, "tends to" and "may". Each situation is unique. Also, they suggested if you just keep the same coach, you can expect similar results. No thank you.

It fails to consider both sides of the argument. Sometimes you need to fire a coach, for example, if he has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that is not fit for the job.

While it went out of the way to support the premise with examples, it didn't bother to note the exceptions, which abound just this year.