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!

OSU game fallout thread

WarBuff said:
What we needed yesterday from our HC
View attachment 28014

what we got

iu
Click to expand...
I think it is even worse than that...even Stuart Smalley would grab what he wanted....
 
here's my summary of where things stand:
  • there seems to be good reason to lack confidence in HCMM and valid reasons to make a change
  • the buyout is >= $9M and CUAD is not a cash heavy department
  • according to the narrative on Allbuffs throughout 2017, ADRG spent most of political capitol within the university to get HCMM the big raise
Well, shjt. Assuming all three bullets are true, where does this leave us?

i'm not trying to come across as overly negative of RG. I don't follow CU fund raising and AD adminsistration close enough to do so. I was critical of the raise when it happened in 2017 (HCMM had no leverage in Spring 2017 when the raise was awarded) but two respected posters here convinced me the long game RG was playing was worth the investment and risk.

I'm seriously interested in anyone's thoughts as to how we move forward, other than a BMD coming in, opening the checkbook and saving the day. Can RG negotiate with the CU powers-that-be (Board of Regents? University Pres? I don't really know who holds the power here) to spend the $$$ for a change? is there a glimmer of hope in HCMM such to warrant giving one more year (in context of increasing difficulty of schedule over the next two)? Find or fabricate a reason to fire MM for cause (images of an attractive female student seducing him and later claiming rape)?

I'm not seeing how we get out of this.
 
hokiehead said:
here's my summary of where things stand:
  • there seems to be good reason to lack confidence in HCMM and valid reasons to make a change
  • the buyout is >= $9M and CUAD is not a cash heavy department
  • according to the narrative on Allbuffs throughout 2017, ADRG spent most of political capitol within the university to get HCMM the big raise
Well, shjt. Assuming all three bullets are true, where does this leave us?

i'm not trying to come across as overly negative of RG. I don't follow CU fund raising and AD adminsistration close enough to do so. I was critical of the raise when it happened in 2017 (HCMM had no leverage in Spring 2017 when the raise was awarded) but two respected posters here convinced me the long game RG was playing was worth the investment and risk.

I'm seriously interested in anyone's thoughts as to how we move forward, other than a BMD coming in, opening the checkbook and saving the day. Can RG negotiate with the CU powers-that-be (Board of Regents? University Pres? I don't really know who holds the power here) to spend the $$$ for a change? is there a glimmer of hope in HCMM such to warrant giving one more year (in context of increasing difficulty of schedule over the next two)? Find or fabricate a reason to fire MM for cause (images of an attractive female student seducing him and later claiming rape)?

I'm not seeing how we get out of this.
Click to expand...
I know you’re joking, but even the suggestion of fabricating a story about rape is pretty disgusting IMO.
 
Few random thoughts that haven't been brought up much in this thread:
  • We started 3 freshmen OL yesterday, right? For the first time in many years, they said. Of course they're gonna suck. The hope is that they get better and the experience pays off. I'm way more concerned about RBs going forward ... Fontenot doesn't strike me as an upgrade.
  • Luton had the half of his entire life. Our CBs are hot garbage, but if you look back, he fit numerous absolute dimes into tight windows over and over and over ... every time they needed a perfect throw, he delivered. He was unconscious. That happens sometimes (see: random guards having record-setting nights vs CU basketball team) and not much you can do about it. You could feel even when they were still down 14 that they would come all the way back.
  • Looking at the depth chart, losing Edwards on the Dline hurts.... but are we really gonna miss Gamboa, Lewis, Worthington that much? We should absolutely be much better next year. (Besides the RB situation)
  • We will not make a bowl this year ... I don;t see anything about this team that makes me think we bounce back from this and the schedule is stacked against us. But anything short of 8 wins next year and MM should be gone. He'll have an experienced, senior heavy team again, like 2016.
 
Last edited:
Not an uncommon opinion here but 6-6 or even 7-5 would be the worst of both worlds because we get into a minor bowl and MM probably still keeps his job. Sure a bowl game is always good because of the added exposure and extra practices but it would likely be one of the early bowl games which doesn't get as much attention. 8-4 would be ok since it would mean we rebounded and finish 2-2 in 4 games toss-up type games but then again that's just, well, a slight cut above mediocrity.

This is all based on the assumption that RG would fire MM if we lose out to go 5-7 and quite frankly I'd be good with that since I'm not a big MM fan and this team isn't going anywhere special this year anyway.

To summarize, as @Duff Man pointed out in another thread, all 6-6 or 7-5 does is put us in no-man's land.
 
hokiehead said:
here's my summary of where things stand:
  • there seems to be good reason to lack confidence in HCMM and valid reasons to make a change
  • the buyout is >= $9M and CUAD is not a cash heavy department
  • according to the narrative on Allbuffs throughout 2017, ADRG spent most of political capitol within the university to get HCMM the big raise
Well, shjt. Assuming all three bullets are true, where does this leave us?

i'm not trying to come across as overly negative of RG. I don't follow CU fund raising and AD adminsistration close enough to do so. I was critical of the raise when it happened in 2017 (HCMM had no leverage in Spring 2017 when the raise was awarded) but two respected posters here convinced me the long game RG was playing was worth the investment and risk.

I'm seriously interested in anyone's thoughts as to how we move forward, other than a BMD coming in, opening the checkbook and saving the day. Can RG negotiate with the CU powers-that-be (Board of Regents? University Pres? I don't really know who holds the power here) to spend the $$$ for a change? is there a glimmer of hope in HCMM such to warrant giving one more year (in context of increasing difficulty of schedule over the next two)? Find or fabricate a reason to fire MM for cause (images of an attractive female student seducing him and later claiming rape)?

I'm not seeing how we get out of this.
Click to expand...
For an immediate escape, a two-way Sugar Daddy is required. 1) pat off MM; 2) help hire new HC.

There are things MM can overtly do as well as substantially seeding a well coordinated whisper campaign.
 
hawg1 said:
For an immediate escape, a two-way Sugar Daddy is required. 1) pat off MM; 2) help hire new HC.

There are things MM can overtly do as well as substantially seeding a well coordinated whisper campaign.
Click to expand...
Pat off MM? The SEC is dirty.
 
Wasn’t there a discussion last year about how 5-7 teams occasionally go bowling? Guessing a team that lost its last 7 games wouldn’t be a first choice though -
 
hokiehead said:
here's my summary of where things stand:
  • there seems to be good reason to lack confidence in HCMM and valid reasons to make a change
  • the buyout is >= $9M and CUAD is not a cash heavy department
  • according to the narrative on Allbuffs throughout 2017, ADRG spent most of political capitol within the university to get HCMM the big raise
Well, shjt. Assuming all three bullets are true, where does this leave us?

i'm not trying to come across as overly negative of RG. I don't follow CU fund raising and AD adminsistration close enough to do so. I was critical of the raise when it happened in 2017 (HCMM had no leverage in Spring 2017 when the raise was awarded) but two respected posters here convinced me the long game RG was playing was worth the investment and risk.

I'm seriously interested in anyone's thoughts as to how we move forward, other than a BMD coming in, opening the checkbook and saving the day. Can RG negotiate with the CU powers-that-be (Board of Regents? University Pres? I don't really know who holds the power here) to spend the $$$ for a change? is there a glimmer of hope in HCMM such to warrant giving one more year (in context of increasing difficulty of schedule over the next two)? Find or fabricate a reason to fire MM for cause (images of an attractive female student seducing him and later claiming rape)?

I'm not seeing how we get out of this.
Click to expand...
What is this ****? Use your head and delete this garbage. Don’t be a weirdo.
 
aghcsm said:
Wasn’t there a discussion last year about how 5-7 teams occasionally go bowling? Guessing a team that lost its last 7 games wouldn’t be a first choice though -
Click to expand...
Don't have to worry about that. Over the summer the Pac-12 passed a rule that their teams need to win at least 6 games to go to a bowl.
 
Haven't seen anyone talking about this? Can't imagine its accurate but still...
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-10-28 at 5.27.44 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-10-28 at 5.27.44 PM.png
    92.9 KB · Views: 96
There’s no way he isn’t fired if we go 5-7. There’s no where in division 1 football where you lose 7 straight in year 6 of a tenure with one bowl appearance and keep your job.

That being said, I think we find a way to win one or two more games. At 7-5, I’m content, that’s what I would have considered successful going into the year. At 6-6, I’m pissed because I don’t know if we pull the plug and we would’ve stumbled into that with no momentum going into next year.
 
Is it normal to date things 28/10/18 on twitter? I speak European and all like an educated ‘merican, but seems a bit odd.
 
aghcsm said:
Wasn’t there a discussion last year about how 5-7 teams occasionally go bowling? Guessing a team that lost its last 7 games wouldn’t be a first choice though -
Click to expand...

The Pac 12 said teams in this conference who go 5-7 can't accept bowl bids-I'd be stunned if MM is allowed to stay into 2019 if we lose the next four.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top