The simple truth is that Colorado is not a top-tier football factory -- certainly not at the same level as Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State, etc. Rather, Colorado has been an upper-level second-tier program, capable of the occasional appearance in the Top 25 and -- when the stars align -- a legitimate shot at a league championship and a top-10 finish.
Don't worry guys. Colorado has never actually been good, except for a couple of years in the early 90's. Dan Hawkins isn't any worse than average. No need to get mad at Hawkins, it's unlikely the program will ever be much better. That's my summary of the article.
Look, I agree that Colorado hasn't always been a great football school. But look at the last 30 years before Hawkins:
Bill McCartney: 93-55
Rick Neuheisel: 33-14
Gary Barnett: 49-39
That's a 62% winning percentage and that's including McCartney's early losing seasons. That comes out to 7.4 wins in a 12 game season and a bowl invitation. I don't think any Colorado fan expects us to be in the top 10 every year and compete for a national championship. But they expect a team that consistently beats bad teams. A team that at least competes in the Big 12. A team that goes to a bowl game. A team that once in a while has a shot at a BCS bowl or maybe even a national championship. Thats all anyone wants.
The Daily Camera is right though, the damage done to the program by Hawkins will be difficult to repair because Colorado doesn't have the funding and fan base of Texas or Oklahoma. Thats why the sooner Hawkins goes the better. The longer he stays, the longer it will take to return to the level of the McCartney/Neuheisel/Barnett years.