Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

Is sustained success even possible at CU?

seattlebuff

Well-Known Member
I'm genuinely interested in people's perspectives on this question. I want to believe, but I'm skeptical that we'll ever "turn the corner" toward even mid-tier sustained success.

I've been a fan since the mid 80s, graduated from CU in 1995 and since the early 90s, we've been on a downhill trajectory as a program, especially the last 20 years. Sure, we've had the occasional 1-2 season stretch where we get lucky on a class, we hit on a Shenault or Richardson, and the stars align that the conference as a whole is down at the same time. But even in those "good" years since Hawkins, we've gotten waxed in our bowl games. It's "paper" success. It's incredibly hard to recruit 3-4 star players from inner cities to CU, we all know about the tight budget and Boulder just simply doesn't have a football culture on the level of 90% of FBS schools.

Tell me I'm wrong. Please!
 
Last edited:
seattlebuff said:
I'm genuinely interested in people's perspectives on this question. I want to believe, but I'm skeptical that we'll ever "turn the corner" toward even mid-tier sustained success.

I've been a fan since the mid 80s, graduated from CU in 1995 and since the early 90s, we've been on a downhill trajectory as a program, especially the last 20 years. Sure, we've had the occasional 1-2 season stretch where we get lucky on a class, we hit on a Shenault or Richardson, and the stars align that the conference as a whole is down at the same time. But even in those "good" years since Hawkins, we've gotten waxed in our bowl games. It's "paper" success. It's incredibly hard to recruit 3-4 star players from inner cities to CU, we all know about the tight budget and Boulder just simply doesn't have a football culture on the level of 90% of FBS schools.

Tell me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong. It's been 20 years now, this is more than just an aberration, it's looking like any hope of even reaching a 7-5 type of record is now gone.

Invest in the basketball program, I'd like to be moderately good at at least one sport.
 
The last 20 years or so would indicate you are not wrong.

For CU to get even semi respectable again they, as a school, would need to change their attitude towards recruiting and what that entails.

They hired a guy that struggled with recruiting at UCLA. This is going to get much worse.
 
seattlebuff said:
I'm genuinely interested in people's perspectives on this question. I want to believe, but I'm skeptical that we'll ever "turn the corner" toward even mid-tier sustained success.

I've been a fan since the mid 80s, graduated from CU in 1995 and since the early 90s, we've been on a downhill trajectory as a program, especially the last 20 years. Sure, we've had the occasional 1-2 season stretch where we get lucky on a class, we hit on a Shenault or Richardson, and the stars align that the conference as a whole is down at the same time. But even in those "good" years since Hawkins, we've gotten waxed in our bowl games. It's "paper" success. It's incredibly hard to recruit 3-4 star players from inner cities to CU, we all know about the tight budget and Boulder just simply doesn't have a football culture on the level of 90% of FBS schools.

Tell me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong.

Until Colorado voters care more about CU and athletic success at CU than they do about whether a regent has an "R" or a "D" next to their name, nothing will change in the long term.

Until that happens (LOL) the length of any athletic success will be highly correlated to how high in the org chart a person who does care about winning sits.

If the AD really cares about winning (and no, some don't and haven't), then a little bit of success will be possible. (For the record, I think RG does care.)

If the chancellor really cares about winning then a little bit more and longer term success will be possible (and no, Phil says the right things, but when push comes to shove, he prioritizes other things).

If the University President cares, then a little more success, and of a longer duration, is possible.

But long term change would require a structural change to the management structure of the university (which, BTW, requires amending the state constitution).

Making it like other state schools, with large boards appointed by governors would probably shift things (as political connections rather than vote gathering become what get you on the board, and athletic boosters can have a larger voice regardless of what party the governor that appointed them came from).
 
Master Blaster said:
Any P5 program can achieve Iowa-level success with the right coaching hire.
Click to expand...
I was thinking Iowa as well reading the question.

Plenty of other schools sustain reasonable success in comparable situations including the one that beat us up today.

Look at where Washington was a few years ago, Wisconsin in the B1G, Utah and more.

@skibum though has the one and only key to it happening and it isn't the right coach.

Get the right administration with a priority on having a winning program and they will eventually get the right coach.

We don't have that.
 
CU is good academically, in a beautiful location, has good tradition and is in a very strong regional area for recruiting.
 
Trogdor said:
CU is good academically, in a beautiful location, has good tradition and is in a very strong regional area for recruiting.
Click to expand...
Everything about this dead wrong.

How good we are academically has ZERO impact on getting good players and coaches. It actually hinders us. (See: WSU).

The VAST majority of football players couldn't give a rats ass about the hiking, biking, skiing that people love about Boulder. We have to get off this "Boulder is a beautiful place" BS. Most of the best programs are in ugly ****hole towns .... where people are college football crazy. That is NOT Boulder.

We had about a decade of "good tradition" (1990-2000)

And wow, if you think the Rocky Mtn region is a very strong place for talent ... I don't know what to tell you.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I’d like to know what exactly is RG being told or how specifically he’s being limited by the Chair of the Pac 12 CEO committee (Phil D).
Click to expand...
I think RG is doing everything he can within the constraints (budget, process, organization, bureaucracy, and political) he has been given by Phil, the President (when we have one) and the Regents.

I'm guessing that like any savvy person, he's figured out what he can ask for and has a chance of getting, and what he shouldn't even bother with - so he probably doesn't really get told no all that often. But if you asked him what he would like to do but can't (and he was honest with you) the list would be rather long.
 
skibum said:
I think RG is doing everything he can within the constraints (budget, process, organization, bureaucracy, and political) he has been given by Phil, the President (when we have one) and the Regents.

I'm guessing that like any savvy person, he's figured out what he can ask for and has a chance of getting, and what he shouldn't even bother with - so he probably doesn't really get told no all that often. But if you asked him what he would like to do but can't (and he was honest with you) the list would be rather long.
Click to expand...
And I’m just wondering what he can’t do and why. This “CU admin won’t do what it takes” narrative has almost become legendary, but nobody really seems to know who from the admin side is limiting RG and how they are doing it
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
And I’m just wondering what he can’t do and why. This “CU admin won’t do what it takes” narrative has almost become legendary, but nobody really seems to know who from the admin side is limiting RG and how they are doing it
Click to expand...
In this current stage, it’s not that they are really limiting anything so much. The issue is that they don’t really care, so they aren’t inclined to help. That’s the difference.
 
Bill Cody said:
In this current stage, it’s not that they are really limiting anything so much. The issue is that they don’t really care, so they aren’t inclined to help. That’s the difference.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case and it’s not really about limitations then I don’t really see any excuses from the admin side.

Serious question: What kind of help from the admin do successful programs get that CU isn’t?
 
Bill Cody said:
In this current stage, it’s not that they are really limiting anything so much. The issue is that they don’t really care, so they aren’t inclined to help. That’s the difference.
Click to expand...
This.

CU is known for being cheap in terms of paying assistant coaches. Good coaches who recruit cost money.

We are also significantly behind those schools we are comparing to in terms of the support staff, especially on the recruiting end.

Recruiting consultants and coordinators, good ones, also cost money. It isn't something you do with guys like Bob Lopez or Chandler Dorrell/Andy Wang and a skeleton staff.

There are other areas as well but bottom line is that we are running a program on the cheap, not for success.
 
MtnBuff said:
This.

CU is known for being cheap in terms of paying assistant coaches. Good coaches who recruit cost money.

We are also significantly behind those schools we are comparing to in terms of the support staff, especially on the recruiting end.

Recruiting consultants and coordinators, good ones, also cost money. It isn't something you do with guys like Bob Lopez or Chandler Dorrell/Andy Wang and a skeleton staff.

There are other areas as well but bottom line is that we are running a program on the cheap, not for success.
Click to expand...
But that’s AD money they refuse to spend, right? Are successful programs getting a lot of money from the academic side that Cu isn’t and that’s the difference?

I know money is a big part of it, but that can’t be the sole difference.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
If that’s the case and it’s not really about limitations then I don’t really see any excuses from the admin side.

Serious question: What kind of help from the admin do successful programs get that CU isn’t?
Click to expand...
When it matters to the people at the top, they push those below them to be successful. That encourages the AD to take risks, and make decisions based on trying to be successful, rather than trying to avoid upsetting those above them for having the AD be a nuisance. Last time CU had a President that cared was Gordon Gee.

From the outside, the difference can look marginal, but CU is an organization just like we all (mostly) work for. I think most of us know the difference between having a CEO that cares about your success because they know it’s important, and having a CEO that is focused on other elements in the company. It is nuanced, but it matters significantly.
 
Bill Cody said:
When it matters to the people at the top, they push those below them to be successful. That encourages the AD to take risks, and make decisions based on trying to be successful, rather than trying to avoid upsetting those above them for having the AD be a nuisance. Last time CU had a President that cared was Gordon Gee.

From the outside, the difference can look marginal, but CU is an organization just like we all (mostly) work for. I think most of us know the difference between having a CEO that cares about your success because they know it’s important, and having a CEO that is focused on other elements in the company. It is nuanced, but it matters significantly.
Click to expand...
So it’s not that they are proactively telling Rick George “don’t do it”, but more that they aren’t proactively telling him “go do it”. That make sense.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
And I’m just wondering what he can’t do and why. This “CU admin won’t do what it takes” narrative has almost become legendary, but nobody really seems to know who from the admin side is limiting RG and how they are doing it
Click to expand...
I take it you've never worked in a large organization? Or you're one of those people who lack enough political savvy to rise in an organization with a lot of internal politics?

Here's the thing, you're almost never explicitly told what you can't do. But you still know.

So, for instance, Phil has probably never had to tell Rick that he can't ask that academic department with the one professor who gives easy grades in that one course to schedule the course so it wouldn't conflict with the best times for football practice.

There are all kinds of large and small things that are similar. It's all about what is emphasized at the top.

For whatever reason, CU hasn't had a leader at the top who would get everybody on board with excelling at both academics and athletics since Gordon Gee. They are too often looked at as being in conflict, a good leader could change that culture.

With the right leadership, a "hey, a lot of athletes really like to take these courses, let's try and make them more accessible for their schedule" shouldn't be a conversation that the chancellor won't have. But absent a leader who is creating a culture from the top that both are valuable pursuits, that's a conversation that isn't happening.
 
seattlebuff said:
Everything about this dead wrong.

How good we are academically has ZERO impact on getting good players and coaches. It actually hinders us. (See: WSU).

The VAST majority of football players couldn't give a rats ass about the hiking, biking, skiing that people love about Boulder. We have to get off this "Boulder is a beautiful place" BS. Most of the best programs are in ugly ****hole towns .... where people are college football crazy. That is NOT Boulder.

We had about a decade of "good tradition" (1990-2000)

And wow, if you think the Rocky Mtn region is a very strong place for talent ... I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
Good academics > **** / average academics > Harvard. Good academics will always attract the interest of players like Justice Finley. The players who don't give a **** about academics aren't choosing other schools bc CU's business school requires too much studying. It's the universities willingness to go full North Carolina that matters.

Other than that you're 100% right. At the end of the day, players want to go to schools that win football games. CU doesn't currently offer that.
 
manhattanbuff said:
College basketball recruiting is a bigger cesspool than College football in many ways, but the basketball team is making inroads. Blame falls squarely on the AD.
Click to expand...
Tad is perfect for CU. I know many here disagree, but I contend he has been successful despite the AD. I will also add that his success was kickstarted by a renewed priority to MBB made by Bohn when he seemingly was trying to protect his ass when he knew he was failing with a ****ty FB program. The investment made by CU in MBB at that time was minimal, and helped them cover up the fact that they had an Athletic Department that was one of the WORST in the country.
 
skibum said:
I take it you've never worked in a large organization? Or you're one of those people who lack enough political savvy to rise in an organization with a lot of internal politics?

Here's the thing, you're almost never explicitly told what you can't do. But you still know.

So, for instance, Phil has probably never had to tell Rick that he can't ask that academic department with the one professor who gives easy grades in that one course to schedule the course so it wouldn't conflict with the best times for football practice.

There are all kinds of large and small things that are similar. It's all about what is emphasized at the top.

For whatever reason, CU hasn't had a leader at the top who would get everybody on board with excelling at both academics and athletics since Gordon Gee. They are too often looked at as being in conflict, a good leader could change that culture.

With the right leadership, a "hey, a lot of athletes really like to take these courses, let's try and make them more accessible for their schedule" shouldn't be a conversation that the chancellor won't have. But absent a leader who is creating a culture from the top that both are valuable pursuits, that's a conversation that isn't happening.
Click to expand...
Ward Churchill was the best….😂😂😂
 
You are right. It has to start at the top. I don't believe for a second the admin wants to win. If they do, they apparently have no idea how to provide that atmosphere for success.

Many moons ago I was on a HS team in Seattle. Boise came sniffing around recruiting saying, "We are building a championship team". We laughed. That was '86. Look where they are now with consistent admin support. They have nowhere near the resources CU has.

I stopped going to the games a couple of years ago when I finally accepted the above. CU is dead frickin' last in W-L record in the P12, I don't see that changing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top