Tag: Buffs

CU Buffs Football Attendance Up in 2015

horvath Leave a comment

The hard cold facts about college football are that every Saturday half the teams are losers. And the CU Buffs are doing their best to make their opponents feel good about themselves on the weekends.

Over the past decade the abysmal win-loss record of the CU Buffs football team has given fans a reason to find other things to do on Saturday afternoons than support the black and gold.

The problems began over a decade ago. The Buffs finished the 2004 and 2005 seasons with 7-5 records. In 2004 they were 4-4 in the Big 12 and in 2005 they were 5-3. Oklahoma beat them 42-3 in the 2004 Big 12 Championships and Texas thumped them 70-3 the following year.

Many viewed these drubbings in the championships as a sign that CU was not capable of participating in the D1 football race to see which program could spend the most money. The CU administration viewed the losses differently. They used them as justification for hiring a new coach.

In retrospect, those days of getting slaughtered in the Big 12 championships were the good old days. The Buffs football team has not had a winning season since 2005.

In 2011, dollar signs flashed in front of the CU administrators and CU jumped from the Big 12 to the PAC-12 conference. Unfortunately the Buffs found out the PAC-12 also had teams that knew how to play football.

Since 2011, the Buffs have had five conference wins – three on the road and two at home. Details follow:

Year Conference Record Comments
2011 2-7 conference record Home win over Arizona and a road win against Utah.
2012 1-8 conference record Road win over Washington State.
2013 1-8 conference record Home win over California.
2014 0-9 conference record Ugh!
2015 1-8 conference record 17-13 squeaker in Corvallis

Unfortunately, the Buffs conference home attendance has paralleled the number of wins on the field.

2011
The Buffs were 1-4 at home in conference play.
• 9/10 49,532 California
• 10/1 51,928 Washington State
• 10/22 52,123 Oregon
• 11/4 50,083 Southern California
• 11/22 48,111 Arizona.
Average conference home attendance 50,355.

2012
The Buffs were 0-5 at home in conference play.
• 9/29 46,893 UCLA
• 10/11 45,161 Arizona State
• 10/27 44,138 Stanford
• 11/17 43,148 Washington
• 11/23 46,052 Utah.
Average conference home attendance 45,078.

2013
The Buffs were 1-3 at home in conference play.
• 10/5 45,944 Oregon
• 10/26 38,679 Arizona
• 11/16 38,252 California
• 11/23 36,005 Southern California.
Average conference home attendance 39,720.

2014
The Buffs were 0-5 at home in conference play.
• 9/13 38,547 Arizona State
• 10/04 36,415 Oregon State
• 10/24 37,442 UCLA
• 11/1 35,633 Washington
• 11/29 39,155 Utah
Fewer than 40,000 people attended every home game and average conference home attendance was 37,438.

2015
The Buffs were 0-5 at home in conference play.
10/3 46,222 Oregon
10/17 39,666 Arizona
10/31 51,508 UCLA
11/13 37,905 USC
11/28 45,823 Utah
The downward trend in attendance has been reversed. Average home attendance for the 2015 home conference games was 42,225 and Buffs fans were usually treated to a good show. Even though they were 0-5, they lost the five home games by a total of only 37 points.

Buff fans have to be the most loyal in the country. Despite going 2-22 at home since joining the PAC-12, they still keep showing up. Here’s to a better 2016! The CU Athletic Department needs fans in the seats to provide better funding for the Olympic sports.

CU Football – Charting a Path to Effective Leadership

horvath Leave a comment

Since CU football began in 1890, the Buffs have had an impressive run, 673–452–36. During these 125+ years, Buff fans have been treated to the athleticism and leadership of athletes such as Dick and Bobby Anderson, Cliff Branch, Tom Brookshier, Darian Hagan, and Whizzer White.

Unfortunately, the Buffs have fallen on lean times for the past nine years, including two years under Coach MacIntyre. During this period the team was 31-79 overall and 16-60 in conference play. In the two seasons under Coach MacIntyre the team was only 6-18; however, those close to the program are quick to point out they have high expectations for the team because they believe his record does not reflect the team’s improvement.

Since taking over MacIntryre has addressed a myriad of issues ranging from recruiting to academics to facilities. Recent team updates in the local media have highlighted MacIntyre’s experiment to strengthen leadership within the program.

He has announced that each game he will rotate four captains from a 12-person leadership council. The council members are primarily upperclassmen and a mix of offensive and defensive players. MacIntyre emphasized that council members were “carefully” elected by the players. Council members have the responsibility/privilege of attending leadership meetings conducted by the Athletic Department in addition to the regularly scheduled council meetings.

In addition, MacIntyre has made a concerted effort to inform the entire team about the importance of effective leadership and the qualities of strong leaders. The coach is to be commended for his efforts to change the culture of leadership within the program.

But, will it have an impact on the team in the short run?leadership from any chair

MacIntyre’s experiment parallels current trends in the business world to implement flat leadership or “leading from any chair.” Organizational theory experts have identified the following benefits of this style of leadership in the business world:
• The concept has increased creativity and innovation in some companies.
• A greater number of workers have a chance for their ideas to be heard.
• In turn, workers may take on greater responsibility and be more willing to be held accountable for their actions.
• Workers may show more initiative because they have a greater sense of importance.
• Cooperation, cohesiveness, and teamwork may improve when a project is successful.
These are great reasons for adopting this style of leadership.

As with any leadership style, “leadership from any chair” has its flaws. Experts have criticized the style for the following reasons:
• The concept is great for creating new products, but not so great at creating new leaders.
• The workplace becomes inefficient because there are no designated leaders to resolve disagreements or curb jealousy and backstabbing.
• At times companies have difficulty making quick or important decisions because there are no designated leaders.
• Although everyone has a voice, groupthink is often an unintended consequence.
• Communications may not always be efficient because too many people may be involved in the decision-making process.
• Mentorship does not occur in the “me first ” environment.
• Not all workers are comfortable with this style of leadership, which renders it ineffective.
These are great reasons for MacIntyre to adopt a more traditional approach for strengthening team leadership.

Will MacIntyre’s leadership experiment seal the deal for the Buffs or will it be a bust?

In a couple of weeks the team will demonstrate whether Coach Mac was able to chart a new path to effective leadership for the Buffs. Go Buffs!

Talk of Bowl Game for CU Buffs

horvath Leave a comment

Brian Howell, Sports Writer for the Daily Camera is a homer (and there is nothing wrong with that.)  On August 23 he wrote an editorial entitled, “Talk of bowl game for CU Buffs has merit this season.”

Howell began the article with the following comments:
“During fall camp this month, a handful of media members stood just outside of the practice fields and discussed the possibilities for the 2014 Colorado football team.
‘Am I crazy to think this team could get to a bowl game?’ one of them asked.
No, believe it or not, it’s not crazy.”
Later he added “Without question, this team is going to need some good fortune along the way to reach bowl eligibility, but no, it’s not crazy to think they can get there.”

Howell thought it was possible the Buffs could sweep the non-conference slate. He was correct until they played the CSU Rams in the season opener. Oops! Thank goodness the Buffs found a way to sneak past Hawaii and UMass. Both Buff opponents are 2-7 at this point in the season.

Later in his article Howell stated, “And, don’t think the Buffs are going to be happy with showing progress by turning blowout losses into narrow losses.”

Howell indicated possible conference wins might come against the following teams:
• California – Buffs lost 59-56 in OT
• Arizona State – Buffs lost 38-24.
• Oregon State – Buffs lost 36-31
• The Buffs will play Arizona on November 8th and Utah on November 29th.
With today’s loss to Washington, the Buffs bubble burst and they dropped to 2-7.With a little luck they will end the year 4-7. Most likely it will be 3-8 or 2-9.

The good news is the Buffs were stronger and they had greater entertainment value this season. From an academic perspective the Buffs will also have an opportunity to focus on their studies this December, while other teams have to focus on winning bowl games. And to top it off, they are blessed with a local sports writer is aDoormat - Bowl Game for CU Buffs homer (and there is nothing wrong with that).

On the downside, there are no moral victories when you play football in the big time. The Buffs are still the doormats of the PAC-12 and ticket sales have reportedly continued on a downward path. Thank goodness CU is playing in the PAC-12. Things would be even worse if they were in one of the top two conferences, the SEC, or the Big 12.

As is the case with the Chicago Cubs, there is always next season.