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!

2016: Recruiting News, Notes & Official Visitors

dpnoffs said:
Why is this year seen as so much different from the Hawkins/Embree recruiting cycle. I may be wrong but I remember in those years we would have maybe 1 commit by June. And we have had at least 8 crappy years since the start of Hawkins
Click to expand...
It is not much different... which is the entire problem.
 
The low number of scholarships available this year should work in CU's favor in regard to attracting better players. Just like teams on NCAA penalty average higher rated recruits than when they're not under penalty limits, there's something about being offered for a limited number of spots that makes the offer more interesting and valuable.

Couple that with facilities tours during the OVs and it should be a good recruiting year. For the reason of facilities (along with a bet that the 2015 season will show a significant jump in on-field W/L performance), I think the strategy of casting a wide net of highly rated guys and then honing that down to the best targets later in the cycle makes a lot of sense.

I'd be posting that I have a lot of concerns about the strategy if CU had a bunch of commits right now.
 
I could be wrong here, but just in the last couple to few years early commitments are way up. Seems like a few years ago only the biggest schools with the most pull would have a bunch of commits before fall camps started, which is not how it is now. Used to be that kids would take their 5 OVs and then decide, now they just get it done before summer.
 
White_Rabbit said:
I could be wrong here, but just in the last couple to few years early commitments are way up. Seems like a few years ago only the biggest schools with the most pull would have a bunch of commits before fall camps started, which is not how it is now. Used to be that kids would take their 5 OVs and then decide, now they just get it done before summer.
Click to expand...

Commitments do seem to be coming earlier. I don't know if that's fact or perception, but it's my impression too.

A couple years ago, I was talking to Adam about CU recruiting and the best strategy for the Buffs to use. At the time, he was partial to the approach that Boise State used to build its program (and Hawkins tried to bring here -- successfully, at first). Basically, that the prospect ratings this time of year by the premium sites and college coaching staffs are based on junior year performance, that young men develop at different rates, that some guys are injured or sit out due to transfer rules or are stuck behind a big time senior during their junior seasons, and that if you wait for those guys who blow up as seniors or the guys who get caught in the recruiting wash because spots filled or they were cut loose by their top schools... there is a better opportunity with lessened competition to find better players late while also making fewer mistakes. With Hawkins, as we know, it blew up on him when he waited and then recruited as a lame duck late in the process & then we had a transition year with nothing done at the time Embree took over. But this approach, assuming program stability, seems to be a better way to build. (fwiw, it will also result in a lower rated class that is more talented than it appears to be.)
 
Buffnik said:
Commitments do seem to be coming earlier. I don't know if that's fact or perception, but it's my impression too.

A couple years ago, I was talking to Adam about CU recruiting and the best strategy for the Buffs to use. At the time, he was partial to the approach that Boise State used to build its program (and Hawkins tried to bring here -- successfully, at first). Basically, that the prospect ratings this time of year by the premium sites and college coaching staffs are based on junior year performance, that young men develop at different rates, that some guys are injured or sit out due to transfer rules or are stuck behind a big time senior during their junior seasons, and that if you wait for those guys who blow up as seniors or the guys who get caught in the recruiting wash because spots filled or they were cut loose by their top schools... there is a better opportunity with lessened competition to find better players late while also making fewer mistakes. With Hawkins, as we know, it blew up on him when he waited and then recruited as a lame duck late in the process & then we had a transition year with nothing done at the time Embree took over. But this approach, assuming program stability, seems to be a better way to build. (fwiw, it will also result in a lower rated class that is more talented than it appears to be.)
Click to expand...

Could be true. Idk, I still think if CU is decent in the wins column with up to date facilities and a good recruiting staff there's no reason we can't compete with every school in the P12 outside of UCLA, USC, and Oregon, and Stanford I guess for the smarty pants recruits. I don't have a problem with taking a few senior pop-up guys, though.

Random aside, I've been following the MLB draft a lot more lately. This was one of my questions I had been pondering. Seems like a lot of teams there place a lot of emphasis on the month or two leading up to the draft. But then there's initial observations from the previous summer circuit or Cape Cod League etc. Sometimes GMs get out there to do a lot of legwork, but only in those last couple of months so it really isn't a great sample size. You could go see 5 baseball games and not get a legit feel for a kid because of so many random variables. So I figure the best bet would be to do a little of everything. Factor in how they did the previous summer, how they've done their senior year, but also factor in how well they look in the present day.
 
Does anyone think we may need a juco receiver that is a big target? Kinda like blandin last year?
 
I think we need more size and deep speed at WR. We have a few decent slot options there going forward, but we're lacking true #1 WR types.
 
A couple new offers in Jacksonville today.

[tweet]601397241601982464[/tweet]

[tweet]601396686347497472[/tweet]
 
Buffnik said:
The low number of scholarships available this year should work in CU's favor in regard to attracting better players. Just like teams on NCAA penalty average higher rated recruits than when they're not under penalty limits, there's something about being offered for a limited number of spots that makes the offer more interesting and valuable.

Couple that with facilities tours during the OVs and it should be a good recruiting year. For the reason of facilities (along with a bet that the 2015 season will show a significant jump in on-field W/L performance), I think the strategy of casting a wide net of highly rated guys and then honing that down to the best targets later in the cycle makes a lot of sense.

I'd be posting that I have a lot of concerns about the strategy if CU had a bunch of commits right now.
Click to expand...

I hope your right. The only two players I think are close to commiting are Noyer and Mason. Unfortunately, I think we'll get the one that Oregon State doesn't want, which is right now Noyer.
 
Buffnik said:
The low number of scholarships available this year should work in CU's favor in regard to attracting better players. Just like teams on NCAA penalty average higher rated recruits than when they're not under penalty limits, there's something about being offered for a limited number of spots that makes the offer more interesting and valuable.

Couple that with facilities tours during the OVs and it should be a good recruiting year. For the reason of facilities (along with a bet that the 2015 season will show a significant jump in on-field W/L performance), I think the strategy of casting a wide net of highly rated guys and then honing that down to the best targets later in the cycle makes a lot of sense.

I'd be posting that I have a lot of concerns about the strategy if CU had a bunch of commits right now.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this. It's more logical that the higher average is just because teams get their best guys but don't have slots to "fill out" their class. Our ceiling seems to be 3 star recruits, so we'll get a higher percentage but not necessarily more of them. Does that really improve overall team talent (assuming the stars mean something and 2 stars get less PT)? Or are you trying to say fewer slots makes us more attractive to 4 star recruits?
 
zbuff said:
I don't understand this. It's more logical that the higher average is just because teams get their best guys but don't have slots to "fill out" their class. Our ceiling seems to be 3 star recruits, so we'll get a higher percentage but not necessarily more of them. Does that really improve overall team talent (assuming the stars mean something and 2 stars get less PT)? Or are you trying to say fewer slots makes us more attractive to 4 star recruits?
Click to expand...

When scholarship numbers are low, coaches use the "we have limited spots this year and we want you, but we can't wait around". It works.

The program itself being more selective and strategic may play a factor in the numbers, as you suggest, but I doubt it. Most of the data generated is because a program is penalized a scholarship or two. There's no difference in the first 20 guys used in the ratings whether a program has 22 or 24 scholarships available. It's got to be the message, not the actual situation. Perception creates the reality and primary targets become more likely to commit.

Where I have to wonder about this in relation to CU is that it seems to be a disconnect between that effective message and a program being hyper-patient with accepting verbals... the situation CU finds itself in this season. Limited scholarships available, but coming off a winless conference season and not having the facilities ready to show off until the fall.

I'm nervous. We should all be nervous.

Basically, we're all crossing our fingers that MacIntyre delivers a bowl season and that we'll see recruiting happen like it did for the 2008 class when things exploded with commitments from visitors who came during December practices. That can happen this year. "Program on the Rise" -- with -- "$150 million in new facilities to take it to the next level" -- with -- "Spots are Limited". We should end up loving the 2016 class if all of this comes together.
 
FLounder said:
DUUVVVALLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Click to expand...

BOOOOOUUUUUULLLLLLLDDDDEEEERRRRR!

See how stupid that looks and sounds? I guess we should expect this kind of thing from Florida. Probably the most creative thing they've come up with in a long time in those parts.
 
I know what kind of crowd is on this board, because I knew what he was talking about from jump. It's like saying EDISTSEW where I'm from, nobody gets it outside of here.
 
^^ with a pretty solid offer list that CU might be able to compete with.

Btw, the sheer number of FL offers we've thrown out should mean we at least get a few commits, right?? What a disappointment it will be if our FL recruiting efforts don't result in any 2016 commitments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top