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!

If Colorado Loses The 'Roocky Mountain Showdown'

It's not hypOcritical at all. I think Hawk is a certified moron. He's an incompetent boob who knows how to talk, but doesn't know the first thing about how to win football games at this level. He's in way over his head. The natives are restless, and he doesn't seem to give a damn. That's going to make them even more restless. I don't foresee him being fired prior to year end, which will lead to broad based upsetness throughout Buff-nation. How is my saying any of this being hypocritical?

The move to the Pac will only exacerbate the issue. Fans have had their expectations beaten down over the last four years. Now we're heading into a new conference, where we will want to represent ourselves adequately. Our fans don't want to be embarrassed in our new home. Hawk is an embarrassment, there's no two ways about it. Without the move to the Pac, Hawk could have probably counted on apathy to keep things from getting ugly. That apathy is gone. It's been replaced by unfounded expectations. Unfounded expectations spawn unruly fan behavior.

^^This^^.

My biggest fear is Hawk staging a temporary turnaround this year and winning just enough games for the powers that be to justify keeping him for another year or two. We need a fresh start and the sooner the better.
 
^^This^^.

My biggest fear is Hawk staging a temporary turnaround this year and winning just enough games for the powers that be to justify keeping him for another year or two. We need a fresh start and the sooner the better.

If we were going to remain in the Big 12, I'd have that same concern. Now, I'm not so sure. I could be totally wrong, but my sense of it is that the admin won't be satisfied with 6-6 or even 7-5. Hawk got a death row reprieve because of politics and the impending conference change. Expectations are not only higher from the fans, but from the administration as well. Hawk is on very thin ice. He needs to win 8 games this year to keep his job. I don't see that as likely, but I suppose it's possible.
 
If we were going to remain in the Big 12, I'd have that same concern. Now, I'm not so sure. I could be totally wrong, but my sense of it is that the admin won't be satisfied with 6-6 or even 7-5. Hawk got a death row reprieve because of politics and the impending conference change. Expectations are not only higher from the fans, but from the administration as well. Hawk is on very thin ice. He needs to win 8 games this year to keep his job. I don't see that as likely, but I suppose it's possible.

I think you are right, and I hope you are right, but keeping him after last year defied all logic and they have made no statements or even indications of a level of expectation this year.
 
I think you are right, and I hope you are right, but keeping him after last year defied all logic and they have made no statements or even indications of a level of expectation this year.

If we've learned anything throughout this entire process, it's that Bohn, Benson and DiStephano don't make a lot of public statements that they may have to back-track on down the road. They're not going to come out and say that they have expectations that need to be met because something could happen to change those expectations. Just the same, I think they know what the rest of us know - Hawk is incompetent - and are making plans accordingly. Obviously, I don't have any direct knowledge of what's going ono up there, but piecing together the parts of the puzzle leads me to the conclusion that politics might have had a hand in keeping Hawk, but that the impending conference move probably had more to do with it. Firing Hawk last year would have meant they would have had a smaller pool of potential coaches to choose from. Keeping him meant that this year was a throw-away, but that they could more effectively build for the future in the Pac 12.
 
I think you are right, and I hope you are right, but keeping him after last year defied all logic and they have made no statements or even indications of a level of expectation this year.

Unfortunately, I think Bohn is afraid to make a statement like that. What if he said something like, "Less than 8 wins in a season is never acceptable at the University of Colorado."? I'd love to hear it. I'm sure most other fans would, too. But not only would it beg the question of why Hawkins was retained after the 2009 season - a question for which there is no good answer and Bohn cannot even respond to honestly... it also creates a situation where Bohn could see Hawkins fail to reach the 8-win bar and not get fired because Bohn is overruled by the CU administration. He'd look like an asshole. Probably better to keep his mouth shut and his head low after what happened last November.
 
I agree with both of you and have posted before what I believe to be the reasoning why Hawk didn't get fired last year and why he will be this year. I can see no logical way that they can keep him after this year short of a major turnaround in record that he has not yet shown he has the ability to lead and inspire.

That said, I still get a kind of sick feeling in my gut that to Benson, DeStefano, and the regents football takes a back seat to their other interest and fail to understand the significance of continued losing. I hope I am wrong but would not be entirely surprised if we end up with another kick in the gut at the end of this year if Hawk does something that the powers can claim to be "significant progress and a step in the right direction."
 
MB is doing the smart thing...keeping hid yap shut and his powder dry. Perception is reality and last year the perception was MB was going to clip Hawk. He got overrruled/outmaneurvered and he looked denutted at the end of the day.

The Pac 10 move saved his bacon and got him some credibility back IMO, I am sure there were indications in Nov. the Pac would be making a move on CO, but my guess is that didn't firm up until after the first of the year. MB lucked out on the timing and will play this one close to the vest if he has any brains at all.

Budget wise, they'd love Hawk to pull 8 W's and decide later what to do. I seriously doubt Hawk will be above .500, and every L below that mark makes MB's job easier (i.e. easier to justify).

FB wise, I am fairly sure they would like a new HC no matter what Hawk does this year.
 
Unfortunately, I think Bohn is afraid to make a statement like that. What if he said something like, "Less than 8 wins in a season is never acceptable at the University of Colorado."? I'd love to hear it. I'm sure most other fans would, too. But not only would it beg the question of why Hawkins was retained after the 2009 season - a question for which there is no good answer and Bohn cannot even respond to honestly... it also creates a situation where Bohn could see Hawkins fail to reach the 8-win bar and not get fired because Bohn is overruled by the CU administration. He'd look like an asshole. Probably better to keep his mouth shut and his head low after what happened last November.

Was it Bohn or Hawkins who said that CU's baseline expectations should be to beat our primary rivals, CSU & Nebraska, and to play in a bowl game?

Either way, I haven't heard anyone at CU back off of that expectation. In his 5th season, Hawkins should be held against that measuring stick.

It's probably not just about the wins, though. The public relations aspect is also relevant. Dan Hawkins would need to say something pretty special to undo all of the harm that's been done with his mouth.
 
Was it Bohn or Hawkins who said that CU's baseline expectations should be to beat our primary rivals, CSU & Nebraska, and to play in a bowl game?

Either way, I haven't heard anyone at CU back off of that expectation. In his 5th season, Hawkins should be held against that measuring stick.

It's probably not just about the wins, though. The public relations aspect is also relevant. Dan Hawkins would need to say something pretty special to undo all of the harm that's been done with his mouth.

MB's most recent spin was that competitve means being in the top half of the B12. Of course, that was before the Pac 10 move, but MB was spinning to manage expectations back in Nov. / Dec. of '09 to justify kepping the Albatross. My how things have changed from Hawk's baloney bravado about:"either you are trying to win a NC or you are not", when he first got here.
 
I think we have seen enough said by MB to know he is going to make a change if the university can afford it. I am more concerned with whether we want the guy that hired Hawk to be hiring the next guy? I honestly don't know the answer. I like MB's hiring of Bz and Boyle. I hope that MB has learned from his mistakes with Hawk and goes in a completely different direction. No more dink and dunk football. Get us back to a power game!
 
I think we have seen enough said by MB to know he is going to make a change if the university can afford it. I am more concerned with whether we want the guy that hired Hawk to be hiring the next guy? I honestly don't know the answer. I like MB's hiring of Bz and Boyle. I hope that MB has learned from his mistakes with Hawk and goes in a completely different direction. No more dink and dunk football. Get us back to a power game!

You can bank on Chuck Neinas being heavily involved in the next coaching search which can be a good or bad thing depending on your view of Neinas. He was invovled in Florida's hiring of Urban Meyer, and Stoops to OU, but he also helped bring Hawk and Bohn to CU.
 
If I remember correctly, Ricardo Patton (former CU men's basketball coach) was under contract through June 30, 2007.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/3dedada6020bb5523d49068ed4750320.html

Bohn certainly had opportunities to extend Patton, but decided not to do so, and Ricardo Patton announced that he would not be returning to the Buffs in October, 2006.


Dan Hawkins is under contract through the end of the season, 2012. It would not surprise me at all if Bohn just didn't extend Hawkins and let him coach out what is left of his contract, rather than buy him out.
 
Dan Hawkins is under contract through the end of the season, 2012. It would not surprise me at all if Bohn just didn't extend Hawkins and let him coach out what is left of his contract, rather than buy him out.

If this is the case, Hawk will outlast Bohn. Honestly, if Hawkins doesn't somehow pull 8 wins out of his ass this year, there will be a pitchfork wielding mob camped out on Bohn's doorstep.
 
If this is the case, Hawk will outlast Bohn. Honestly, if Hawkins doesn't somehow pull 8 wins out of his ass this year, there will be a pitchfork wielding mob camped out on Bohn's doorstep.

I'll help supply the pitchforks.
 
If this is the case, Hawk will outlast Bohn. Honestly, if Hawkins doesn't somehow pull 8 wins out of his ass this year, there will be a pitchfork wielding mob camped out on Bohn's doorstep.


Keep in mind when Bohn terminated Gary Barnett, he paid him the entire remaining balance due on his contract, and made a big point of stating at the press conference, "As an athletic director I feel it is imperative that we honor our contractual obligations."

If 2010 is CU's last year in the Big 12 conference, and CU has to give up approximately $9 million in Big 12 revenues to leave to go to the Pac-10, I could certainly foresee enough financial hardship that CU would not be able to pay off 2 years of Hawkins salary AND hire a new coach.
 
Keep in mind when Bohn terminated Gary Barnett, he paid him the entire remaining balance due on his contract, and made a big point of stating at the press conference, "As an athletic director I feel it is imperative that we honor our contractual obligations."

If 2010 is CU's last year in the Big 12 conference, and CU has to give up approximately $9 million in Big 12 revenues to leave to go to the Pac-10, I could certainly foresee enough financial hardship that CU would not be able to pay off 2 years of Hawkins salary AND hire a new coach.

Not the case anymore, Hawk will be out after this season
 
Keep in mind when Bohn terminated Gary Barnett, he paid him the entire remaining balance due on his contract, and made a big point of stating at the press conference, "As an athletic director I feel it is imperative that we honor our contractual obligations."

If 2010 is CU's last year in the Big 12 conference, and CU has to give up approximately $9 million in Big 12 revenues to leave to go to the Pac-10, I could certainly foresee enough financial hardship that CU would not be able to pay off 2 years of Hawkins salary AND hire a new coach.

I agree on the money angle. I surmise CU may not have enough money to terminate/buyout Hawk if the negotiation on exit penalty with Big XII lite go bad. Plus the political fall-out could be ugly for CU brass. However, if Hawk has a bad year he will be under even more intense pressure from boosters, fans and his bosses. He may actually crack under that pressure. He showed signs last year that he was completely burned out/checked out. Maybe there is some chance he will take a favorable buyout (from CU's perspective) just to get out of here. MB has shown a willingness to keep a lame duck coach in Patton, so the threat may not be hollow.

Just trying to find a light at the end of the tunnel.
 
The political fallout will be minimal, if it happens at all. The election is in early November. They'll fire him about 10 minutes after the plane from Lincoln lands on November 26. The money was reportedly there last year, so it would be there again this year. I don't think there's anything, short of an 8+ win season, that will save Hawkins' job.
 
The political fallout will be minimal, if it happens at all. The election is in early November. They'll fire him about 10 minutes after the plane from Lincoln lands on November 26. The money was reportedly there last year, so it would be there again this year. I don't think there's anything, short of an 8+ win season, that will save Hawkins' job.

If the money was truly there last season, then why did they give him another season? Not only was he not producing, but he didn't even seem to care anymore. Even before the season, I think it was Woody Paige that wrote an article stating he thought Hawk's demeanor had changed and was no longer showing the passion for CU football. It seems like money had to be an issue in the decision.
 
If the money was truly there last season, then why did they give him another season? Not only was he not producing, but he didn't even seem to care anymore. Even before the season, I think it was Woody Paige that wrote an article stating he thought Hawk's demeanor had changed and was no longer showing the passion for CU football. It seems like money had to be an issue in the decision.

Allegedly, Pres. Benson intervened because he did not want to explain the firing and payoff of another coach when he was begging for support form the General Assembly. The private $$$ was there to can Hawk, I'm told, but Benson wasn't confident in his ability to explain the difference between public and private funds.
 
Allegedly, Pres. Benson intervened because he did not want to explain the firing and payoff of another coach when he was begging for support form the General Assembly. The private $$$ was there to can Hawk, I'm told, but Benson wasn't confident in his ability to explain the difference between public and private funds.

Makes sense. Thank you for the information.
 
If the money was truly there last season, then why did they give him another season? Not only was he not producing, but he didn't even seem to care anymore. Even before the season, I think it was Woody Paige that wrote an article stating he thought Hawk's demeanor had changed and was no longer showing the passion for CU football. It seems like money had to be an issue in the decision.

One of the more plausable reasons is that Bohn & the higher ups were reasonably certain prior to the 2009 Nebraska game that CU would be joining the Pac 10 within a matter of months. But it wasn't yet certain that the Pac 10 deal would happen and what kind of revenue CU would stand to loose by departing the Big12 until CU had a firm offer in hand.

Leadership took a bet that it was financially safer to retain Dan Hawkins until the dust had settled from the conference realignment. A less attractive alternative would have been to release Dan Hawkins and announce a new coach before the Pac10 deal was made known.

Benson/DiStephano and the Regents bet that the fans would forgive them of their decission to retain Dan Hawkins for one more year after the Pac10 cat was let out of the bag. By keeping Hawkins one more season, the 2010 recruiting efforts would not be wasted, plus Dan Hawkins would get to serve out year-5 of his contract. The team would be 100% Dan's and his excuses about building a foundation would no longer apply. The team is entirely made up of Hawkins recruits, and now he had the chance to truely show what he was capable of building. If Hawkins turns the corner in 2010, then the CU admin looks smart for excersizing a little patience. This sends a signal to any future coaching candidates that CU's admin are somewhat fair and can offer 5-years of stability. This is important in the absense of long term contracts being made available for assistants, and an inability to pay Alabama sized coaching salaries.

But should Dan Hawkins fail in 2010, then Mike Bohn will be able to execute a coaching search that includes one major new variable that didn't exist last November. CU is about to become a member of the Pac10. By keeping Hawkins around this season, CU kept their powder dry and will be able to develop a better candidate list that will be more in tune with the realities of the Pac10. Plus any questions about financial impacts that are associated with leaving the B12 will be cleared up, and the buy-out of Dan Hawkin's contract will become less pricey.

If that's how the deal went down, then it was a shrewd move on behalf of everyone involved. I doubt we'll know if this was the thinking until after the terms of exiting the Big 12 are finalized, and after Dan Hawkins has proven that he couldn't make things pop in year five.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top