Yeah...if that is average then I have an average sized penis....
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!
Rumor Mill is on to Richt Now... Smoke or Fire?
- Thread starter SanDiegoBuff
- Start date
Yeah...if that is average then I have an average sized penis....
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
It's not average, he did a great job!
exactly!
From an anonymous friend:
So far, I have heard that Calhoun, Fitzgerald, Miles, Bellotti and Richt are not good coaches.
No wonder Bohn says he doesn't pay attention to message boards.
Awesome, Richt isn't good enough for CU. He can't recruit California. Winning in the SEC is easy compared to the P12. Georgia recruits itself. 95-33 in the SEC is average.
Lol
MR in the SEC
first 5 years:
30-10 with 2 SEC titles
second 5 years:
23-17 with 0 SEC titles
in the 2nd 5 years, he did however make a BCS bowl with UGA finishing 2nd and 3rd in the AP and Coaches respectivley. that was 07.
not making the case for him. im not real wild on the thought of him but it was better than i suspected.
first 5 years:
30-10 with 2 SEC titles
second 5 years:
23-17 with 0 SEC titles
in the 2nd 5 years, he did however make a BCS bowl with UGA finishing 2nd and 3rd in the AP and Coaches respectivley. that was 07.
not making the case for him. im not real wild on the thought of him but it was better than i suspected.
He went up against what 4 national championship teams and 3 heisman winners in the second five year span? You have to have a pretty special team and alot of luck to win the SEC these days.
troo. however, he also had two 4-4 seasons over those 5 years and this year has 5 losses in the SEC. that is a lot of losses to teams without heisman winners and non-BCS champ teams when you are recruiting top 10 classes every year.
just playing a little of a devils advocate role here. im not sold on the guy but im not totally against him either. he has pleanty of strong points and pleanty of weak points. CU could do worse than MR. no question about it, imo. just not sold on the guy.
we've had how many .500 years in the big 12 in 10 years? If you could promise me 4-5 or 5-4 every year in the new league as a WORST CASE I'd take that.
why? just because its been so bad lately?
Mac was 36-3-3 in his last 6 years. then add on Neu at 12-3 the next two years. that is 48-6-3 in 9 years. that is one loss or tie per year in conference paly.
now, i dont expect that. that was a great run. but to be happy with 4 to 5 conference losses per year, even if at worst? no thanks. i think CU can do a bit better than that on average.
two things:
How many of those teams besides nebraska were worth a damn during those years? we are headed to another 12 team conference that plays 9 in conference games. No one will have a run like that.
Do you understand the concept of worst case?
The kings o fthe big12 hve lost 18 and 19 games respectively in the past 10 years.
yes. i understand the concept of worst case. you also added "every year". its right up there in post #130. that matters. im not interested in 4 to 5 losses in conference every year. may as well be with the 2 win teams because you will never sniff a BCS game of any sort, let alone be in play for a conference championship.
also, the kings have, according to your numbers, averaged one to two losses per year in conference. sound good to me. sounds like they are in contention for something. when you are losing 4 to 5 game every year in conference, you are in contention for jack ****.
well, i guess some weedeater bowl game. yeah, i guess that sounds good now but, its not exactly what i want to see this program competing for. i would rather see them in the running for a BCS game once every 2 to 4 years and a MNC once or twice a decade. it means they are playing games that matter. a 4-5 game losing team in conference is never playing for anything of any importance.
you said you would be fine with 4 to 5 losses per year worst case. im not fine with that. what can i tell you?
fatbuff
Member
He also lost to a Dan Hawkins coached team. Almost twice.
Bob stoops has also lost to hawk. so has Mike Leach. In blowouts. Twice. I still have no idea how the Zen Master did these things, but I have to think just maybe losing to Hawk can mean good things? :lol:
fatbuff
Member
No ****, 4DB. Just because we have been lousy the last decade, all of the sudden its OK to be average. There is nothing worse than being average, and accepting it. You have to be trying to be the best every second of every day, or there is no use even trying. Just lay back and be a lump of ****. **** you pussy-ass fans that are ready to accept average results. Go be pussies up north in FC, where you can send your coach a cheese of the month club when you win the Weedeater Bowl. CU fans are looking for championships.
This is the rare case where I agree with fatty. That said, it is also not wrong to acknowledge CU's historical win-rate is not the rate from 88-96. But that is what we should shoot for, every ****ing time.
fatbuff
Member
Until Hawkins came along, we were top 20 in all-time wins. We have a proud tradition that needs to be revived.
Win rate is more important than all time wins. But I agree. Love what Cabral is doing, hope the new coach continues it.
I don't know if Richt can make it happen at CU or not, he started out great at Georgia and has tailed off over the past few years. Some of that can be attributed to how tough the SEC is but some of that also could be attributed to him just not being as enthusiastic or fresh about coaching. Some of the UGA fans said prior to our games with them that he doesn't have the same level of intensity as he did before about the game. This job is going to require somebody willing to put everything into turning it around to be successfull.
I also am not satisfied with the idea of bringing in a guy who will be "pretty good." Even with the limitations we have in the program if the target is not conference championships and contending for the national championship, why bother? If you don't aim for it you don't get it and settling for being an also ran means that that is the best we will get. Mac proved that we can have better as have other coaches at programs with more limitations that CU has.
If we are going to be happy sinking down to a level of expectations of "Let's just go to a bowl most years and maybe beat a good team or team each season." we might as well join the MWC and be CSU fans, that is their level of hopes and expectations.
I also am not satisfied with the idea of bringing in a guy who will be "pretty good." Even with the limitations we have in the program if the target is not conference championships and contending for the national championship, why bother? If you don't aim for it you don't get it and settling for being an also ran means that that is the best we will get. Mac proved that we can have better as have other coaches at programs with more limitations that CU has.
If we are going to be happy sinking down to a level of expectations of "Let's just go to a bowl most years and maybe beat a good team or team each season." we might as well join the MWC and be CSU fans, that is their level of hopes and expectations.
4db I think we are looking at this differently.
With a 9 game conference schedule if you could promise over his entire career the next coach would never lose more than 5 of those games meaning we'd likely never finish worse than 6-6 I'd be ok with that. If 6-6 is your floor you are going to have some pretty damn good teams in-between. Sure you can site 88-96, every team shoots for runs like that but neither of those coaches escaped boulder with out very bad seasons, and you didnt really address the fact that runs like that don't happen in 12 team conferences. Since 2002 the kings of the SEC have all lost 18 or more games, its about the same in the big12. Really the only conference that has had a dominant player over the past 9 years has been the big 10 or one of the non-AQ conferences and even OSU lost 9 games. Football confrences have changed the bigger and more evenly structured they become the more parity well see.
With a 9 game conference schedule if you could promise over his entire career the next coach would never lose more than 5 of those games meaning we'd likely never finish worse than 6-6 I'd be ok with that. If 6-6 is your floor you are going to have some pretty damn good teams in-between. Sure you can site 88-96, every team shoots for runs like that but neither of those coaches escaped boulder with out very bad seasons, and you didnt really address the fact that runs like that don't happen in 12 team conferences. Since 2002 the kings of the SEC have all lost 18 or more games, its about the same in the big12. Really the only conference that has had a dominant player over the past 9 years has been the big 10 or one of the non-AQ conferences and even OSU lost 9 games. Football confrences have changed the bigger and more evenly structured they become the more parity well see.