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!

The worst jobs in P5 college football (ESPN Insider)

GoonieBuff said:
I'm surprised Indiana is in that tier. Academically, they're good, but not more difficult to get kids in than most of the other B1G schools. Plus, they'll have new facilities (or at portions of) in all of their sports, including football, in the next few years thanks to numerous big time donors. Obviously the lack of a winning tradition in football in an old school football conference is keeping them low on the list.
Click to expand...

When you look at the teams at the bottom, there seem to be some commonalities. Lots of programs that have never shown they can achieve sustained success in football. Some basketball-first schools. Some with academic standards that would hold them back. But the big thing seems to be whether it's a location that can readily attract recruits. The ones coaches seem to believe have the most upside are places like Colorado, Rutgers and Illinois... large state universities with locations that make it possible to get dudes. CU, given what it has achieved in the past, leads the upside list. Sleeping Giant.
 
Buffnik said:
When you look at the teams at the bottom, there seem to be some commonalities. Lots of programs that have never shown they can achieve sustained success in football. Some basketball-first schools. Some with academic standards that would hold them back. But the big thing seems to be whether it's a location that can readily attract recruits. The ones coaches seem to believe have the most upside are places like Colorado, Rutgers and Illinois... large state universities with locations that make it possible to get dudes. CU, given what it has achieved in the past, leads the upside list. Sleeping Giant.
Click to expand...

I buy some of that, but have you ever been to Champaign-Urbana? ****hole in the middle of nowhere.
 
GoonieBuff said:
I buy some of that, but have you ever been to Champaign-Urbana? ****hole in the middle of nowhere.
Click to expand...

The article brought up proximity to athletes in the Chicago, St. Louis and Memphis metros. The thing is, though, those are better recruiting grounds for basketball than football. Still, a better setup than many of the programs in the bottom 2 tiers.
 
Pac 12 Blogger Ted Miller posted his own conference ranking, and CU got 11th in the Pac 12.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/108979/ranking-the-pac-12-coaching-jobs-2

We're behind Oregon State and Utah, ahead of Wazzu. It's splitting hairs, but that's giving CU no credit for the past success like the Insider article did. More of just, who's won lately in the Pac-12. And f*ck Utah for getting the benefit of the doubt.

1. USC: USC is arguably the nation's preeminent football program in terms of national and conference titles, award winners, All-Americans and NFL Hall of Famers. It's a big-stadium team, and its new football building is pretty freaking cool. Moreover, while there are great national programs with comparable -- or perhaps even superior -- traditions such as Alabama or Notre Dame, USC is in Los Angeles, which is infinitely cooler than Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and South Bend, Indiana.

i
2. Oregon: The Ducks rank No. 2 based on their steady rise to national prominence, as well as a seven-year run that ranks the program among the super-elite. Oh, and their facilities are sparkly.

i
3. UCLA: Nos. 1 and 2 are pretty obvious here. After that, things get pretty bunched up, but UCLA emerges in the coveted No. 3 spot because of its recent success under coach Jim Mora, which includes three consecutive wins over the Trojans. While the Rose Bowl is off campus, it's still the Rose Bowl, and its recent renovation gave it a considerable upgrade. It also appears that the school is finally investing in the program -- see a new football building on the way -- so it can debunk the notion it's a basketball school (the basketball team also is contributing to that cause). Further, Southern California's A-list prep talent means the Bruins can sustain success under the right coach -- read: Mora.

i
4. Arizona State: Todd Graham appears to have awoken a program that has long been termed a "sleeping giant." The school is in the process of upgrading Sun Devil Stadium, which is long overdue. There is also potential to continue to upgrade recruiting with a nice combination of location, weather and admission standards.

i
5. Washington: Obviously, we feel the Washington job has room to move up, as the program has just about everything, other than a recent run of success, to help it. There was a temptation to put Washington higher just because of the magisterial renovation of Husky Stadium.

i
6. Stanford: Ah, the subjectivity of this list. The Cardinal sit here in the middle of the pack in large part because of academic standards that most coaches would feel are highly unfavorable. David Shaw, a Stanford graduate, doesn't feel that way and has found ways to make it a recruiting benefit instead of a bane. Still, when a program can't even consider most of the ESPN 300 due to academics, that's a challenge for a coach.

i
7. California: While Berkeley is arguably the nation's best state university, it has been able to get "special admits" to the football program through the years, which was particularly a boon to former coach Jeff Tedford. It appears things are a bit tougher for third-year coach Sonny Dykes. Still, there's good talent available in Northern California and the facilities are A-list. No reason the Golden Bears can't regain the traction they once had under Tedford.

i
8. Arizona: Arizona has upgraded its facilities and is on an uptick under Rich Rodriguez. Still, most view Arizona as a basketball-first school, and the historical success of both programs supports that perception. Of course, if Rodriguez gets the Wildcats to the Rose Bowl for the first time and eclipses rival Arizona State on the field on a consistent basis, Arizona would move up.

i
9. Utah: The teams from here and down on this list find themselves hit for at least one of two reasons: (1) stadium size/attendance; (2) winning. Utah is on the uptick on the latter, which is why it ranks ahead of the others. It has also experienced the most recent national relevance, though not as a member of the Pac-12.

i
10. Oregon State: The Beavers typically found a way to win under Mike Riley, but the program -- other than a charmed 2000 season under Dennis Erickson -- has not been able to take substantial and consistent steps toward national relevance. We do take note that when Riley bolted for Nebraska, the Beavers were able to impressively lure Gary Andersen away from Wisconsin. If Andersen makes Oregon State a nine- or 10-win team, the Beavers will move up.

i
11. Colorado: Though its time in the Pac-12 has been miserable, Colorado has solid tradition -- highlighted by a split national championship in 1990 -- and Boulder, Colorado, is among the nation's very best college towns. That said, the facilities and administrative commitment have lagged behind other programs in college football's arms race. The losing is an issue as well.

i
12. Washington State: The Cougars have played in two Rose Bowls since 1997 -- how many other programs can say that? So it's a fact that the right coach can win at Washington State. Still, when the wins aren't coming, it becomes relevant to note the size of Martin Stadium and the isolation of Pullman, Washington. As noted by alumnus Kyle Bonagura, Washington State is the Pac-12's most challenging job.
 
I'm failing to see how you could rank OSU ahead of us. As far as I'm concerned, them and Wazzu are the same.

It is odd that they mention Tedford's succees, but also don't point out McCartney or Barnett. Also odd that he doesn't mention money issues thst plague ucla and Cal.
 
TDbuff said:
Pac 12 Blogger Ted Miller posted his own conference ranking, and CU got 11th in the Pac 12.http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/108979/ranking-the-pac-12-coaching-jobs-2We're behind Oregon State and Utah, ahead of Wazzu. It's splitting hairs, but that's giving CU no credit for the past success like the Insider article did. More of just, who's won lately in the Pac-12. And f*ck Utah for getting the benefit of the doubt.
i
11. Colorado: Though its time in the Pac-12 has been miserable, Colorado has solid tradition -- highlighted by a split national championship in 1990 -- and Boulder, Colorado, is among the nation's very best college towns. That said, the facilities and administrative commitment have lagged behind other programs in college football's arms race. The losing is an issue as well.
Click to expand...

When I see the comments about facilities I get the impression this was written a year ago. Are our new facilities under construction still considered bottom of the Pac? Or do these guys not realize we are building them? Or are they saying that until they are in use they don't count?

I wont argue that we shouldn't be toward the bottom. But it seems to me the guy did no research and just kind of went by memory or something. Why else give UCLA credit for planned upgrades but not even mention we are half way through a major upgrade project? Seems lazy and biased.

It'll be just that much more satisfying when we turn this thing around.
 
Last edited:
'Tini said:
I'm failing to see how you could rank OSU ahead of us. As far as I'm concerned, them and Wazzu are the same.

It is odd that they mention Tedford's succees, but also don't point out McCartney or Barnett. Also odd that he doesn't mention money issues thst plague ucla and Cal.
Click to expand...

It's typical, lazy ESPN commentary. CU is an afterthought for the national media as it doesn't move the needle or help their arguments to keep all things equal or edumacate themselves on the current state of the program (facilities, admin, etc.)
 
1. We suck
2. We suck
And 3. We suck.

Until such time as we dont suck.

Which is when we will get some coverage and people we notice we have nice things again.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
1. We suck
2. We suck
And 3. We suck.

Until such time as we dont suck.

Which is when we will get some coverage and people we notice we have nice things again.
Click to expand...
yeah, i mean it's totally realistic to expect a Pac 12 blogger to glance over teams in his own conference
 
Ted Miller is anything but lazy. He's calling it like he sees it. It's hard to post a logical argument against what he's saying. We are a horrible football team - or at least we have been a horrible football team in recent years. He acknowledges that if a few things go right, we're right back in the top half of that list.

I can't argue at all with rankings. I think they're pretty much spot-on. One could maybe make the argument that the CU job is better than OSU or Utah based on a number of factors. The fact of the matter is that since we've come into the league, we're 1-5 against those two programs.
 
sackman said:
Ted Miller is anything but lazy. He's calling it like he sees it. It's hard to post a logical argument against what he's saying. We are a horrible football team - or at least we have been a horrible football team in recent years. He acknowledges that if a few things go right, we're right back in the top half of that list.

I can't argue at all with rankings. I think they're pretty much spot-on. One could maybe make the argument that the CU job is better than OSU or Utah based on a number of factors. The fact of the matter is that since we've come into the league, we're 1-5 against those two programs.
Click to expand...
Would help if he was consistent in his ranking criteria
 
'Tini said:
Would help if he was consistent in his ranking criteria
Click to expand...


Seriously?

What difference does it make? It's not a scientific ranking. It's his take on things. He's free to be as inconsistent as he wants to be.
 
sackman said:
Ted Miller is anything but lazy. He's calling it like he sees it. It's hard to post a logical argument against what he's saying. We are a horrible football team - or at least we have been a horrible football team in recent years. He acknowledges that if a few things go right, we're right back in the top half of that list.

I can't argue at all with rankings. I think they're pretty much spot-on. One could maybe make the argument that the CU job is better than OSU or Utah based on a number of factors. The fact of the matter is that since we've come into the league, we're 1-5 against those two programs.
Click to expand...

The problem is that, two of the reasons he gives for CU's poor ranking (admin and facilities), are the exact reasons he gives for optimism with almost all the other programs. It's like he wrote CU's blurb last year at this time and just copy pasted.
 
sackman said:
Seriously?

What difference does it make? It's not a scientific ranking. It's his take on things. He's free to be as inconsistent as he wants to be.
Click to expand...
What's the point of ranking things if you're not going to be consistent in doing so?
 
TSchekler said:
The problem is that, two of the reasons he gives for CU's poor ranking (admin and facilities), are the exact reasons he gives for optimism with almost all the other programs. It's like he wrote CU's blurb last year at this time and just copy pasted.
Click to expand...


Admin and facilities continue to be a work in process. The facilities aren't finished, and though we've seen a better commitment to athletics *recently* from the administration, the fact remains that DiStefano is still the Boulder Campus Chancellor. If the winds change, he'll throw the entire AD under the bus - again. For now, he's supportive, as is the rest of the administration. That's good, but it's also a marked change from their historical position. I don't think we'll know for sure if the administration is truly being supportive until there's a 7-8 year track record. Right now, we have about a 2-year track record.

I should also add that even with the new facilities we are currently building, that doesn't bring us up to the point where our peers are. This project will get us about halfway to where we need to be.
 
sackman said:
Admin and facilities continue to be a work in process. The facilities aren't finished, and though we've seen a better commitment to athletics *recently* from the administration, the fact remains that DiStefano is still the Boulder Campus Chancellor. If the winds change, he'll throw the entire AD under the bus - again. For now, he's supportive, as is the rest of the administration. That's good, but it's also a marked change from their historical position. I don't think we'll know for sure if the administration is truly being supportive until there's a 7-8 year track record. Right now, we have about a 2-year track record.

I should also add that even with the new facilities we are currently building, that doesn't bring us up to the point where our peers are. This project will get us about halfway to where we need to be.
Click to expand...
It doesn't? Explain. What are we missing that schools other than Oregon have?
 
'Tini said:
It doesn't? Explain. What are we missing that schools other than Oregon have?
Click to expand...


Our stadium is antiquated. Our press facilities are horrible. The entire stadium needs a thorough renovation. Balch needs to be replaced. The CEC needs a complete renovtion with additional seating and concessions added. Our track facilities are an embarassment. The indoor track will help that a little, but Potts Field needs about $5MM in renovations. We probably need about another $250MM to do these things. They're all in the long term plan, but long term plans are just that - long term. No timeline has been set for the rest of the upgrades, which makes sense because the funding for those upgrades is nowhere to be found at this time.

We also are ridiculously behind the rest of the conference in terms of sports that we compete in. No wrestling, baseball, swimming, diving, softball or gymnastics in a conference that prides itself on top notch olympic sports.

Face it, we have a long way to go.
 
Ok, but how does that compare to the rest of the conference? I'm not really concerned with sports not named football or basketball. I can see how track can have an impact, but the others I frankly don't care about and I don't think were used in the rankings of jobs.
 
sackman said:
Our stadium is antiquated. Our press facilities are horrible. The entire stadium needs a thorough renovation. Balch needs to be replaced. The CEC needs a complete renovtion with additional seating and concessions added. Our track facilities are an embarassment. The indoor track will help that a little, but Potts Field needs about $5MM in renovations. We probably need about another $250MM to do these things. They're all in the long term plan, but long term plans are just that - long term. No timeline has been set for the rest of the upgrades, which makes sense because the funding for those upgrades is nowhere to be found at this time.

We also are ridiculously behind the rest of the conference in terms of sports that we compete in. No wrestling, baseball, swimming, diving, softball or gymnastics in a conference that prides itself on top notch olympic sports.

Face it, we have a long way to go.
Click to expand...

None of that is related to the article in discussion. While I 100% agree with you, the article was about football and was discussing our football facilities. Folsom needs a facelift, but the facilities that impact recruits/players are in the middle of a massive upgrade.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
None of that is related to the article in discussion. While I 100% agree with you, the article was about football and was discussing our football facilities. Folsom needs a facelift, but the facilities that impact recruits/players are in the middle of a massive upgrade.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely related. It shows the commitment the school has to it's athletics.

Stanford's soccer stadium:

14-Laird_Q_Cagan_Stadium-640x349.jpg


No recruit is going to go to a recruiting trip to Stanford and come away with the impression that Stanford doesn't care about it's athletes -regardless of what sport they participate in.

Same with the rest of our conference bretheren. We're behind them. All of them. We're doing our best to catch up, but we still have a long way to go.
 
sackman said:
It's absolutely related. It shows the commitment the school has to it's athletics.

Stanford's soccer stadium:

14-Laird_Q_Cagan_Stadium-640x349.jpg


No recruit is going to go to a recruiting trip to Stanford and come away with the impression that Stanford doesn't care about it's athletes -regardless of what sport they participate in.

Same with the rest of our conference bretheren. We're behind them. All of them. We're doing our best to catch up, but we still have a long way to go.
Click to expand...

No football recruit is going to come to Colorado, see the new football facilities, and come away with an impression that Colorado doesn't care about it's football team... which is really all that matters to football recruits... which is really all that matters to the financial health of CU's AD.
 
And it kind of gets to my point when I hear people talk about how great the new facilities are going to be and how they're really going to help. We need to get it out of our heads that this project is what gets us back to even with our peers. It doesn't. It helps, but there is a lot more work that needs to be done AFTER this project is completed. We can't afford to lose sight of that. Decades of neglect have put us where we are now.
 
I am pretty sure that a recruit visiting any campus for football or basketball is not going to care what the school has for soccer facilities unless he's trying to play two sports.
 
sackman said:
Our stadium is antiquated. Our press facilities are horrible. The entire stadium needs a thorough renovation. Balch needs to be replaced. The CEC needs a complete renovtion with additional seating and concessions added. Our track facilities are an embarassment. The indoor track will help that a little, but Potts Field needs about $5MM in renovations. We probably need about another $250MM to do these things. They're all in the long term plan, but long term plans are just that - long term. No timeline has been set for the rest of the upgrades, which makes sense because the funding for those upgrades is nowhere to be found at this time.

We also are ridiculously behind the rest of the conference in terms of sports that we compete in. No wrestling, baseball, swimming, diving, softball or gymnastics in a conference that prides itself on top notch olympic sports.

Face it, we have a long way to go.
Click to expand...

No. The CEC does not need additional seating. I don't believe that we've sold out a game yet this year (Arizona tix still available as of 90 minutes ago) and I think we only sold out two last year (KU and UA). I'd 1000 times rather have a small full arena than a big empty one.
 
sackman said:
Our stadium is antiquated. Our press facilities are horrible. The entire stadium needs a thorough renovation. Balch needs to be replaced. The CEC needs a complete renovtion with additional seating and concessions added. Our track facilities are an embarassment. The indoor track will help that a little, but Potts Field needs about $5MM in renovations. We probably need about another $250MM to do these things. They're all in the long term plan, but long term plans are just that - long term. No timeline has been set for the rest of the upgrades, which makes sense because the funding for those upgrades is nowhere to be found at this time.

We also are ridiculously behind the rest of the conference in terms of sports that we compete in. No wrestling, baseball, swimming, diving, softball or gymnastics in a conference that prides itself on top notch olympic sports.

Face it, we have a long way to go.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how any of those things would effect a football recruit. The things they would mostly care about are the things under construction right now. Also, back to my point. The guy gives us zero credit for our ongoing upgrades but gives UCLA credit for planned upgrades that haven't even begun. Kind of a double standard.
 
sackman said:
And it kind of gets to my point when I hear people talk about how great the new facilities are going to be and how they're really going to help. We need to get it out of our heads that this project is what gets us back to even with our peers. It doesn't. It helps, but there is a lot more work that needs to be done AFTER this project is completed. We can't afford to lose sight of that. Decades of neglect have put us where we are now.
Click to expand...

Look, I agree with you that this major facilities project is the the first big step in the right direction, but isn't the last one needed. It's always going to be an on going process that can't stop, but we're talking about the football facilities and the conversation about upgrading other sports' facilities will always begin and end with how the football team is doing. Bringing it back to the article and rankings, I just don't think it's consistent to mention how UCLA, AZ and every other mediocre football program in the Pac 12 have these nice new shiny football facilities, or are building them, and then say "Colorado admin and facilities have been neglected for a long time", when we are in the same boat.
 
hokiehead said:
No. The CEC does not need additional seating. I don't believe that we've sold out a game yet this year (Arizona tix still available as of 90 minutes ago) and I think we only sold out two last year (KU and UA). I'd 1000 times rather have a small full arena than a big empty one.
Click to expand...
additional seating options I think it more appropriate. We need boxes. Those things typically sell out and pay for a lot of other things. CEC doesn't need to get much bigger to accomplish that goal though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top