What's new
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!

Should we have an AllBuffs Grading Scale for prospects?

Should we have an Allbuffs Rating System for prospects?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 11 28.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 20 52.6%
  • Not sure. Could be good, but I have reservations.

    Votes: 7 18.4%

  • Total voters
    38

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
My initial idea would be to attach a poll to each prospect's profile.

Probably something along the lines of what I posted in the Cyler Miles thread:


5 = Must get. Program changer who is clearly the best player at his position on our recruiting board.
4 = Great get. Top player who is among the best player at his position on our board and we would enthusiastically take if he wanted to commit.
3 = Nice get. Good player who has a lot of potential, but probably a "Plan B" player at his position if we miss out on our top targets.
2 = Reach. Somewhere below a "Plan B" type guy who has some potential but it would be disappointing if this is who CU signed at his position.
1 = Stay away. CU should not consider signing this player and it's a mistake if we do.

What do you guys think?

What are the pros and cons of doing this?

Is it something you'd like to see?
 
If we do it, shouldn't it be different than the same five star system? Maybe another add-on would be the relevance to the program. Like he might be a "Program changer" but also fills a big hole in the program? Or is a legacy? Or part of a pipeline? ...just sayin'.
 
If we do it, shouldn't it be different than the same five star system? Maybe another add-on would be the relevance to the program. Like he might be a "Program changer" but also fills a big hole in the program? Or is a legacy? Or part of a pipeline? ...just sayin'.

i tend to agree with this more then just the straight talent scale. most of us will not see most of these guys play, so we would just be regurgitating what is put on the pay sites.
 
Would probably generate some interesting discussion; I'm game. Curious to see how we would rate our 2011 class using your criteria set out above.
 
we should take a poll to see if we should put a poll on profiles. But yes i think we should
 
What kind of qualifications are necessary to judge these youngins?

Good hair?
Quality of the name?
Whether they went to your highschool, or that of a hated rival?

Or do you actually have to watch YouTube and consider measurables?
 
My biggest concern is that it compromises part of the mission of the recruiting forums - to make any prospects who visit our site feel like they are really wanted and will be welcomed if they decide to become Buffs.

My secondary concern is that it would increase the need for policing the forums by the mod/admin team to make sure that people don't rip on prospects.
 
My only concern with the proposal is that a CU recruit (or his parents) could see he isn't as highly ranked here as he might like and get turned off. Is that concern valid? I don't know, but thought I'd throw it out there.
 
My biggest concern is that it compromises part of the mission of the recruiting forums - to make any prospects who visit our site feel like they are really wanted and will be welcomed if they decide to become Buffs.

My secondary concern is that it would increase the need for policing the forums by the mod/admin team to make sure that people don't rip on prospects.

We could default to a minimum of the rivals rating. Therefore our discussion could reflect well if we wanted improve the score.
 
My biggest concern is that it compromises part of the mission of the recruiting forums - to make any prospects who visit our site feel like they are really wanted and will be welcomed if they decide to become Buffs.

My secondary concern is that it would increase the need for policing the forums by the mod/admin team to make sure that people don't rip on prospects.

Both concerns are shared by me. no real need for it iyam.
 
And I will **** with the poll results, if needed. :smile2:
 
Maybe, but there are so many rankings and ratings and numbers, etc, already. Could be confusing with another set of #'s floating around.
 
It should be unique to allbuffs. Maybe not 1,2,3,4,5. Use colors or something else that will stand out to us.
 
Another concern I would have is that votes are static but opinions aren't. For example, there are a number of in-state guys who probably wouldn't have gotten as high a rating when their profiles were created as they would be today. Take Evan Baylis. He's gone from being a skinny guy without a lot of stats and no football film (only lacrosse) at the time his profile was created... to a national top ten TE prospect who is a Top 200 player with many of the services. I might have given him a "3" in the beginning, but at least a "4" today. A poll wouldn't reflect his stock rising.
 
I kind of see this as being counterproductive to the work the coaching staff is doing. Their job is to get every high school football player out there excited for the opportunity to become a Buff. Any player the coaches offer a scholarship to is a must get player. I don’t want to see a player that our coaches have offered the chance to play football and receive a strong education from CU turn down a scholarship because a group of fans did not rate him high as another prospect (no offense to everyone).
 
There are maybe ten, at most, posters on this board that have any business ranking or evaluating recruits. Thus, I vote against any type of grading or ranking scale. It would be based on (a) completely random and irrelevant facts (that kid's tattoo pisses me off!) (b) the kid's 40-yard dash time or (c) what someone read on Rivals or Scout.

The Irwin brothers are a good example. If there had been a poll on these kids, the OT would have been graded highly (I suspect) while the TE would have likely been graded quite poorly. My strong hunch is that most people would have graded him poorly simply on that single, and what we now know is misleading, initial photograph which made him look very skinny.
 
The more I think about it, the more I believe wispy, et al, have it pegged. Our judgements are nothing more than interwebz talk, and since it's a public forum, could be construed as negative in the eyes of the young men and their families.


Speaking of the families -- I know there are a few who are posting here. It would be really interesting to hear their take on the matter.
 
voted no. as said above about a recruit/family seeing it and not liking it and what business do i have evaluating recruits? i dont care as much about stars as the other schools that are recruiting the player anyway.
 
No because if a recruit sees it and we give him a 1 or 2, that could turn him off and a potentially solid asset to our team is lost.
 
My biggest concern is that it compromises part of the mission of the recruiting forums - to make any prospects who visit our site feel like they are really wanted and will be welcomed if they decide to become Buffs.

My secondary concern is that it would increase the need for policing the forums by the mod/admin team to make sure that people don't rip on prospects.

Those are my concerns. At some point somebody is going to come up with a 1* rating and start defending it, and the whole tone of our recruiting forum changes.

We've already got star ratings from Rivals and Scout, and in most cases their people are going to have watched more video on these kids than any of us (except for you Nik, but that's why you're a rock star). Personally I'd prefer to stick with those...
 
Don't know that our admittedly under-informed opinions on this site are really the decisive factor in recruits and their families choosing CU or another school, at least I certainly hope not. As it stands, posters already offer their opinions about different guys and point out areas where we think the kid needs to improve, or other guys who may be a bit more polished or talented.

The ranking system proposed, in my mind, is just a continuation of this conjecture, with the obvious disclaimer that even the best among us are probably not going to be getting a call from any team anytime soon to conduct talent evaluation for them. Just chewing the fat and having some fun, talking a little football about the team we love.

That being said, since there are some serious concerns, perhaps it should be a no go.
 
No, I don´t think this is "our" mission, so to speak.

I see the recruiting forum as some sort of a news aggregator to give people a one stop info source for all they need, mixed in with some personal opinion. The recruiting forum should be an advertisement for them to come to play football and earn their degree at the University of Colorado at Boulder and I believe it´d be counter productive if "we" started rating those kids. If the "pros" do it´s their thing, but we´re "just" fans and we shouldn´t go down that way.

My $.02
 
I voted no for reasons already stated. However, what I have always wanted to see is the Rivals rating in the tread titles to streamline things when you're perusing the recruiting forum. Another service would be fine too, I just tend to agree with Rivals the most. Or perhaps their highest rating to make all of us feel good, or an abbreviation with all of the ratings. Just a thought...

'12 MD WR Stefon Diggs 5*
'12 MD WR Stefon Diggs R:5* S:5*
'12 MD WR Stefon Diggs Rivals:5* Scout:5* ESPN:- 247:5*
'12 MD WR Stefon Diggs Rivals:5*, 5*, -, 5*
 
Would be kind of fun to see what people really think of prospects, but we also don't want to attack recruits. *shrug* There's probably too many people like me that think every prospect we offer has some good value. I'm a lot better at figuring out prospects going from college to the pros, high school to college is hard as hell.
 
Back
Top