Official 2016 Head Coach Prediction Thread

[PAHIBuff]

I still think there's at the very least a 50/50 chance that the school would throw the team/coach/program under the bus if there was another pseudo-scandal. And that's being very generous. That's what a meant about "worst HC job in P5". it's just a crappy culture up there.

 

[Big Jim]

This is the worst HC job in P5 and has been for a long time.

Nah. KU is worse.

But "worse" is cyclical. BU, KSU, and NU all were the worst for a lot longer than CU. They all found administrations and coaches that help to elevate them. It is ironic that the same coach oversaw the beginning of the rise of NU and the fall of CU.

CU can someday be the second best job in the Pac-12 South and a top 20 job nationwide. A lot has to change for that to happen, but it can.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Sounds like Rick George is really, really pissed. REALLY PISSED. This could get interesting. I'm not sure if he's "fire Mac" pissed or "Mac better make changes" pissed. But he will certainly have a very frank discussion with Mac and I, now, would not be surprised if he tested the waters. I think his biggest problem is the bottom line. If he did decide to make a change he'd have to sell it to Benson and Benson would tell him "show me the money." I'm not sure what the buy out situation is but it probably isn't optimal for making a change right now.

It'll also be interesting to see what Leavitt does. Will he throw his support toward Mac or will he look for the 4:10 to Yuma or other great college towns? After a year with Mac, is he still as positive that we are on the right track? What he does will be a good litmus test on Mac's ability to get it done.

Comment on the bold. **** you, DBT. How the hell do you know what the arrangement is between Benson and George? What if Benson is putting pressure on Rick George to get this football program turned around? "Hey Rick, the football program is the front porch to the university. Another season without a bowl game is unacceptable, Rick. Just tell me what else you need to turn this thing around, Rick, and it's yours."

If Benson is failing to plow the way for Rick George to succeed, then CU needs a new president.

 

[PAHIBuff]

Yeah, because CU's management is concerned about the athletic teams.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Yeah, because CU's management is concerned about the athletic teams.

So you are saying Benson learned nothing during the seven year ruination of CU football under Hawkins & Embree?
His ability to raise money from the private sector is only enhanced by a football rebuild. The football program's irrelevance isn't the legacy he needs as CU's chief.

 

[buffaholic]

Even SEC presidents have to answer to folks when it comes to budget. That's why it's almost always a "booster financed" thing. We got some boosters that are tapped out including my buddy. This thing is over a decade long and a lot of money was pulled from too few people for facilities.

 

[PAHIBuff]

He's not openly hostile, I'll grant you that. But no one in his circles is ever going to judge him by the on-field performance of the football team. He'll support Rick George but there's not an infinite checkbook for a continual series of coach firings/buyouts. I think that's what DBT was referring to.

 

[Deleted member 807]

He's not openly hostile, I'll grant you that. But no one in his circles is ever going to judge him by the on-field performance of the football team. He'll support Rick George but there's not an infinite checkbook for a continual series of coach firings/buyouts. I think that's what DBT was referring to.

Pretty sure Benson's circles include the people in his luxury box at Folsom. The football program cratered on his watch. Benson's legacy is the Anschutz Med Center and football neglect.

 

[RalphieSpeaks]

You are giving potential head coaching candidates some reassurance that they will be given patience. For all we know, next year will be a great market to be looking for a head coach.

All coaches know they have about 3-4 years to make their mark or they are out. Keeping Mac for an extra year is not going to increase the chances of landing a top flight coach because they will feel reassurance. You want to get a top flight coach and make them feel reassured and all warm and fuzzy? Pay top flight money with a nice buyout.

 

[Buffnik]

You know why an elite coach is not going to choose to come to CU -- no matter how much success we start having?

1. Academic requirements. CU doesn't make the exceptions on admissions or have the "athlete path" degree programs they want to see.
2. Assistant coach contracts. CU doesn't offer the compensation and multi-year contracts that allow for building an all-star staff.
3. In-state recruiting. Colorado recruiting requires going very far out-of-state to land top players.

We can attract really good coaches. But the top guys reach a point where they want the table set. So if someone has enjoyed a lot of success at the P5 level he's going to have options to upgrade his situation. CU is not going to be seen as an easier place to win a national title than many other P5 jobs and certainly not better than the upper tier. Better than most (once we're winning), but not a place where the deck is stacked in the coach's favor like some places.

 

[DBT]

All coaches know they have about 3-4 years to make their mark or they are out. Keeping Mac for an extra year is not going to increase the chances of landing a top flight coach because they will feel reassurance. You want to get a top flight coach and make them feel reassured and all warm and fuzzy? Pay top flight money with a nice buyout.

I've always heard and believed that a coach should get a full 5 years. That is especially true if a program is as down as this one is. Where do you get that a coach "knows he has 3 or 4 year?" I can buy into 4. Next year is Mac's 4th. His first full recruiting class, really, was the '14 class. Those guys will be sophomores and a few juniors next year. He deserves a 4th year.

 

[Buffnik]

I've always heard and believed that a coach should get a full 5 years. That is especially true if a program is as down as this one is. Where do you get that a coach "knows he has 3 or 4 year?" I can buy into 4. Next year is Mac's 4th. His first full recruiting class, really, was the '14 class. Those guys will be sophomores and a few juniors next year. He deserves a 4th year.

20-25% of D1 HC jobs turn over every year. (Around 30 of the 129 jobs.) On average, that means that you can expect a HC to be there for 4 years. Take into consideration the guys who become fixtures and stick for a long time and the real average is probably 3 years when hiring a new coach. Either he'll leave for a new opportunity or be fired after 3-4 years. Basically, they get a chance for their first recruiting class to pay dividends. If it does, they leave for what they perceive to be a better job. If it doesn't, they get fired. Sticking beyond that by either party is kind of an outlier.

 

[fatbuff]

I've always heard and believed that a coach should get a full 5 years. That is especially true if a program is as down as this one is. Where do you get that a coach "knows he has 3 or 4 year?" I can buy into 4. Next year is Mac's 4th. His first full recruiting class, really, was the '14 class. Those guys will be sophomores and a few juniors next year. He deserves a 4th year.

You didn't learn your lesson holding out for Hawkins?

 

[SINKRATZ]

I've always heard and believed that a coach should get a full 5 years. That is especially true if a program is as down as this one is. Where do you get that a coach "knows he has 3 or 4 year?" I can buy into 4. Next year is Mac's 4th. His first full recruiting class, really, was the '14 class. Those guys will be sophomores and a few juniors next year. He deserves a 4th year.

It depends on the coach though, right? I could see giving a proven coach 5 years because they've proven before that they can win. If Saban was here and had the same results as Mac 3 years in, he'd get the benefit of the doubt. But with an unproven coach, you need to see signs that they can get you where you want to be, you can't just close your eyes for 5 years and hope for the best.

 

[RalphieSpeaks]

It depends on the coach though, right? I could see giving a proven coach 5 years because they've proven before that they can win. If Saban was here and had the same results as Mac 3 years in, he'd get the benefit of the doubt. But with an unproven coach, you need to see signs that they can get you where you want to be, you can't just close your eyes for 5 years and hope for the best.

Agree with this.

I would have no problem with MM getting next year for sure and maybe a 5th if he was recruiting on par with the rest of the Pac and we knew the talent would at least be there for improvement. The fact is that we have been at the bottom of recruiting since he got here, it doesn't appear that will change anytime soon with him, and on top of that his coaching (or his assistants coaching) leave a lot to be desired.

Poor Recruiting + Poor Coaching = Bad Results

 

[DBT]

You didn't learn your lesson holding out for Hawkins?

That's why I would get rid of Mac next year if he doesn't get it done.

 

[DBT]

It depends on the coach though, right? I could see giving a proven coach 5 years because they've proven before that they can win. If Saban was here and had the same results as Mac 3 years in, he'd get the benefit of the doubt. But with an unproven coach, you need to see signs that they can get you where you want to be, you can't just close your eyes for 5 years and hope for the best.

There is a lot more to it. A big factor for CU is the financial part. I don't think we can afford buy outs. The next factor is that you will, likely, bring in another guy with the same pedigree as Mac has. So, do you want to take that risk? Another factor is that you would very possibly, maybe likely, start all over in the recruiting process. Given all that, I don't see Mac going anywhere this year.

 

[RalphieSpeaks]

There is a lot more to it. A big factor for CU is the financial part. I don't think we can afford buy outs. The next factor is that you will, likely, bring in another guy with the same pedigree as Mac has. So, do you want to take that risk? Another factor is that you would very possibly, maybe likely, start all over in the recruiting process. Given all that, I don't see Mac going anywhere this year.

Everything you say is true except that it will also be true next year and the recruiting process will involve a much larger class. The risk will actually be greater next year.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Everything you say is true except that it will also be true next year and the recruiting process will involve a much larger class. The risk will actually be greater next year.

Next season sets up perfectly for Rick George to go in a few different directions, depending on the outcome. HCMM gets the opportunity to prove he can win. If he can't and the season starts going south again, RG can fire him mid season, make Leavitt the interim HC, and then remove the interim tag after the year. Solves the coaching search issue and would more than likely keep most of our all important 2017 recruiting class in tact.

 

[RalphieSpeaks]

Next season sets up perfectly for Rick George to go in a few different directions, depending on the outcome. HCMM gets the opportunity to prove he can win. If he can't and the season starts going south again, RG can fire him mid season, make Leavitt the interim HC, and then remove the interim tag after the year. Solves the coaching search issue and would more than likely keep most of our all important 2017 recruiting class in tact.

This plan assumes that RG would want JL as the head coach. That is still a big assumption.

 

[Buffnik]

This plan assumes that RG would want JL as the head coach. That is still a big assumption.

The way it would be likely to play out is that MacIntyre will either be successful or he'll be let go during the season for failing to show improvement. Leavitt would get the interim HC tag and if he turned it around he'd get promoted.

I actually think that's what we're looking at in 2016. HCMM better start with wins over CSU and Idaho State.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

This plan assumes that RG would want JL as the head coach. That is still a big assumption.

Clearly. However, if RG has a better option than Leavitt at that point in time, that should mean he's bringing in a home run type of guy.

 

[RalphieSpeaks]

The way it would be likely to play out is that MacIntyre will either be successful or he'll be let go during the season for failing to show improvement. Leavitt would get the interim HC tag and if he turned it around he'd get promoted.

I actually think that's what we're looking at in 2016. HCMM better start with wins over CSU and Idaho State.

Idaho should not be a problem but CSU might be. Lose to CSU and MM might not see October.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The way it would be likely to play out is that MacIntyre will either be successful or he'll be let go during the season for failing to show improvement. Leavitt would get the interim HC tag and if he turned it around he'd get promoted.

I actually think that's what we're looking at in 2016. HCMM better start with wins over CSU and Idaho State.

Do I hear an echo?

Next season sets up perfectly for Rick George to go in a few different directions, depending on the outcome. HCMM gets the opportunity to prove he can win. If he can't and the season starts going south again, RG can fire him mid season, make Leavitt the interim HC, and then remove the interim tag after the year. Solves the coaching search issue and would more than likely keep most of our all important 2017 recruiting class in tact.

 

[pcbuff]

I think the straw that caught Bensons attention was the Cal game. Half the stadium was dressed in black and the Buffs got boat raced. There was no way Benson could avoid the embarrassment to the Alumni base. He's been engaged ever since.
Bad recruiting+ Good coaching won't get it done in the P12. Everything in the college game is based on recruiting. A mediocre coach can do well if they've got the right QB. Look at WSU to validate that.

 

[Deleted member 807]

That's why I would get rid of Mac next year if he doesn't get it done.

How can we reasonably expect him to get it done next year when there is a delay of 2-4 years between the LOI and when the player actually sees the field? The 2016 starters will be those 2013 & 2014 recruits who were at or near the bottom of P12 recruiting classes. We will see a talent gap next season and we can reasonably expect the gap with P12 opponents and Michigan to generate similar results that we saw in 2015.

MacIntyre returning for the 2016 season gets us an opportunity to see another year of inferior depth, speed and strength relative to the rest of the conference.

We would need to give MacIntyre a year 5 & 6 before any improvements in the 2015 and 2016 classes can be seen. Shall we just go ahead and be fair to Mike and automatically give home 2 more seasons regardless of the results on the field this year and next?

If there is some ultimatum that MacIntyre goes bowling in 2016 or else, then all of his recruits in his last and next classes may be playing for a coach to be named later. He is basically recruiting for someone else.

The two year latency between recruiting and performance requires more patience than many of us can muster.

 

[leftybuff]

I go back and forth, my guess is MikMac gets year four. My guess is year four will look a lot like year three. MikMac was not able to get it done on the recruiting trail early. If he had, there would be third and fourth year players ready to lead the charge. While there are some, there are not nearly enough to be competitive in the P12. Although this year's class has some potential, again, how long before those guys are ready? The OL remains a mystery to me, aside from a couple of examples, every guy is a long term project, needing a grey shirt, red shirt and two more years before contribution. The OL may still be two years off from seeing any real positive changes, and those are at best iffy. MikMac got recruiting religion about 2.9 years too late.

So, in the absence of anybody better on the horizon, I pull for MikMac, but harshly realizing it is unlikely he is the guy. That makes me sad, I am not sure I have the stomach to hang around and wait for the next guy's five year plan to heave the ship off the bottom of the ocean.....

 

[BuffaloB]

How can we reasonably expect him to get it done next year when there is a delay of 2-4 years between the LOI and when the player actually sees the field? The 2016 starters will be those 2013 & 2014 recruits who were at or near the bottom of P12 recruiting classes. We will see a talent gap next season and we can reasonably expect the gap with P12 opponents and Michigan to generate similar results that we saw in 2015.

MacIntyre returning for the 2016 season gets us an opportunity to see another year of inferior depth, speed and strength relative to the rest of the conference.

We would need to give MacIntyre a year 5 & 6 before any improvements in the 2015 and 2016 classes can be seen. Shall we just go ahead and be fair to Mike and automatically give home 2 more seasons regardless of the results on the field this year and next?

If there is some ultimatum that MacIntyre goes bowling in 2016 or else, then all of his recruits in his last and next classes may be playing for a coach to be named later. He is basically recruiting for someone else.

The two year latency between recruiting and performance requires more patience than many of us can muster.

In that case it is going to be a long time waiting, his 2015 and 2016 classes are worse to no better then his first couple.

His 2016 is currently like 73rd, behind FIU, La Tech and UAB, and that's with the 1 4* player he has actually recruited.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

In that case it is going to be a long time waiting, his 2015 and 2016 classes are worse to no better then his first couple.

His 2016 is currently like 73rd, behind FIU, La Tech and UAB, and that's with the 1 4* player he has actually recruited.

It's a small class, so general rankings are going to be low. Average star rankings is where this class should be judged, and even by doing that, CU is still ranked 59th. They are, however, ranked ahead of the following P5 programs: NC State, VA Tech, Purdue, BC, Wake, Washington State, UVA, Illinois, Kansas, Indiana, UCF, Syracuse, Cincy, and Iowa State.

However, even this doesn't tell the story as there are teams like Akron, UMass and Hawaii that are ranked in the top 30 for avg stars but only because they have 1 or 2 total recruits but the one or both are 3*.

 

[RalphieSpeaks]

Anyone else think that if MM had not beat OSU he would be gone?

One way to look at it is we get MM for another year because he fell ass backwards into a Pac 12 win.