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!

As of Early Signing Period - 2018 Class Grade

What grade would you give the 2018 recruiting class?

  • A

    Votes: 2 1.3%

  • A-

    Votes: 5 3.1%

  • B+

    Votes: 42 26.3%

  • B

    Votes: 59 36.9%

  • B-

    Votes: 33 20.6%

  • C+

    Votes: 11 6.9%

  • C

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • C-

    Votes: 4 2.5%

  • D

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • F

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Total voters
    160
dyemeduke said:
This may be true in the near term (next handful-several years), but outside of USC, I completely disagree about the other schools "always" going to out recruit us. Things are always fluid, except for USC being a top 5 program of all time. Coaches come and go, coaching hires completely miss, etc.
Click to expand...

Well I did say Stanford/Washington get a bump due to recent success so long-term them always recruiting better than us is a more wait and see situation. Oregon is Oregon and as long as they have neon jerseys and Nike money we can’t beat them. They’ve been bad for 2 years and they’re STILL killing us. Agree USC is USC. UCLA with chip Kelly will kill us. But, even without UCLA is another school with a stadium and location that wins recruits in a place with tons of recruits. I always get these confused but UCLA has the rose bowl and USC has the coliseum? I think that’s right.
 
Voting right now they get a C+. A few late flips that were nice but still ranked somewhere around 40 nationally and 6-7 in the Pac.

IF they can get Allen I would change my grade to a B
 
Above average IMO. I expect us to be in the 20-40s every year...anything outside of that range would be an anomaly...IMO. Like some of the DL pick ups and we have some real depth at QB.
 
GoBuffs08 said:
Voting right now they get a C+. A few late flips that were nice but still ranked somewhere around 40 nationally and 6-7 in the Pac.

IF they can get Allen I would change my grade to a B
Click to expand...
One guy would jump us from a C+ to a B? He must be really good.
 
There are 65 power 5 schools. I too wish CU was top 10 but I think ‘some’ of the expectations here are a little too high. Either you can say we out-recruited 30 of them or we got beat by 35 of them. I don’t want to move the goalposts here for MM and say, “I’m fine settling for middle of the road.”

But I think with where we are, where we came from and where we hope to go this class is a solid B/B+. This has to be the floor for recruiting from now on though. We need to hit 20’s next year, no excuses.
 
CU can absolutely out recruit any of the other schools in the PAC. It wasn't that long ago (in ogre years) that SC was struggling, and I was pissed when they came to Boulder (Barnett era) and got a win. These things are cyclical, ours has been WAY too long. Some of the untouchables are due.


Duff Man said:
It might help if I knew what rankings you guys use. I can never tell.
Click to expand...
image.jpeg[/QUOTE]
 
The Ogre said:
CU can absolutely out recruit any of the other schools in the PAC. It wasn't that long ago (in ogre years) that SC was struggling, and I was pissed when they came to Boulder (Barnett era) and got a win. These things are cyclical, ours has been WAY too long. Some of the untouchables are due.



View attachment 24606
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Heh. I was actually wondering because of blanket statements like no 4* players (definitely not true on at least one site).
 
This class is much, much better than MM classes prior to '17, and it's very similar to '17 in terms of quality (not quantity). I went through the 19 Signed Commits so far and jotted down their Rivals RR number, 247 Grade, and number of P5 offers:

247RivalsP5 offers
Daniel Arias855.73
Darrion Jones855.61
BlakeStenstrom845.60
Ray Robinson835.60
Dimitri Stanley925.68
LJ Wallace815.52
Jarek Broussard845.52
Deion Smith865.69
Frank Fillip875.55
Delrick Adams845.56
Josh Jynes785.51
Dylan Thomas845.77
Israel Antwine845.611
Joshka Gustave815.51
Tava Finau835.51
Clyde Moore845.51
Aaron Maddox705.68
Mustafa Noel Johnson705.52
Davion Taylor915.74
Averages:84.065.573.88
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
For reference, here are the previous MM classes:
# Commits247 AvgRivals RR AvgP5 Offers Avg
20173084.075.564.77
20161681.885.533.50
20151882.565.490.56
20142176.905.390.57
20131881.285.471.00
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Takeaways:
  • It's not surprising that CU struggled this last year, the SRs on the 2016 team were the cream of the 2013 class and a much better 2012 class, whereas the SRs on the 2017 team were the cream of a bad 2014 class and the back end of a pretty mediocre class in 2013.
  • The overall quality of the class and the depth in terms of RR and 247 grade is very, very similar between the '17 and '18 early class.
  • There is a disparity in terms of P5 offers, but the 2017 numbers were bumped up by 3 guys who had more P5 offers than any '18 commit- Polley, Nixon, and Morretti. Similarly, the '18 average was depressed a bit by Stenstrom, who didn't report any other P5 offers although he pretty assuredly had some.
  • On that note, there were only 2 players so far in the '18 class who did not have at least one other reported P5 offer: Stenstrom and Ray Robinson. There were 5 such players in the '17 class: George, Hamilton, Lewis, Chance Lytle, PAige, and Pursell
  • I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the cream of 2017 was better than 2018, but that CU will likely get more contributors out of the '18 class.
 
Last edited:
Denver_sc said:
This class is much, much better than MM classes prior to '17, and it's very similar to '17 in terms of quality (not quantity). I went through the 19 Signed Commits so far and jotted down their Rivals RR number, 247 Grade, and number of P5 offers:

247RivalsP5 offers
Daniel Arias855.73
Darrion Jones855.61
BlakeStenstrom845.60
Ray Robinson835.60
Dimitri Stanley925.68
LJ Wallace815.52
Jarek Broussard845.52
Deion Smith865.69
Frank Fillip875.55
Delrick Adams845.56
Josh Jynes785.51
Dylan Thomas845.77
Israel Antwine845.611
Joshka Gustave815.51
Tava Finau835.51
Clyde Moore845.51
Aaron Maddox705.68
Mustafa Noel Johnson705.52
Davion Taylor915.74
Averages:84.065.573.88
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
For reference, here are the previous MM classes:
For reference, here are the previous MM classes:
# Commits247 AvgRivals RR AvgP5 Offers Avg
20173084.075.564.77
20161681.885.533.63
20151882.565.490.56
20142176.905.390.57
20131881.285.471.00
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Takeaways:
  • It's not surprising that CU struggled this last year, the SRs on the 2016 team were the cream of the 2013 class and a much better 2012 class, whereas the SRs on the 2017 team were the cream of a bad 2014 class and the back end of a pretty mediocre class in 2013.
  • The overall quality of the class and the depth in terms of RR and 247 grade is very, very similar between the '17 and '18 early class.
  • There is a disparity in terms of P5 offers, but the 2017 numbers were bumped up by 3 guys who had more P5 offers than any '18 commit- Polley, Nixon, and Morretti. Similarly, the '18 average was depressed a bit by Stenstrom, who didn't report any other P5 offers although he pretty assuredly had some.
  • On that note, there were only 2 players so far in the '18 class who did not have at least one other reported P5 offer: Stenstrom and Ray Robinson. There were 5 such players in the '17 class: George, Hamilton, Lewis, Chance Lytle, PAige, and Pursell
  • I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the cream of 2017 was better than 2018, but that CU will likely get more contributors out of the '18 class.
Click to expand...

You summed up all my thoughts in this post, dead on. I glanced through the ratings and back a few years and noticed the disparity. We’re no longer getting 2 Star and 70 average recruits (247.) we’ve upped the ante and our quality has improved every year. We are right where we want to be.
 
Denver_sc said:
This class is much, much better than MM classes prior to '17, and it's very similar to '17 in terms of quality (not quantity). I went through the 19 Signed Commits so far and jotted down their Rivals RR number, 247 Grade, and number of P5 offers:

247RivalsP5 offers
Daniel Arias855.73
Darrion Jones855.61
BlakeStenstrom845.60
Ray Robinson835.60
Dimitri Stanley925.68
LJ Wallace815.52
Jarek Broussard845.52
Deion Smith865.69
Frank Fillip875.55
Delrick Adams845.56
Josh Jynes785.51
Dylan Thomas845.77
Israel Antwine845.611
Joshka Gustave815.51
Tava Finau835.51
Clyde Moore845.51
Aaron Maddox705.68
Mustafa Noel Johnson705.52
Davion Taylor915.74
Averages:84.065.573.88
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
For reference, here are the previous MM classes:
For reference, here are the previous MM classes:
# Commits247 AvgRivals RR AvgP5 Offers Avg
20173084.075.564.77
20161681.885.533.63
20151882.565.490.56
20142176.905.390.57
20131881.285.471.00
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Takeaways:
  • It's not surprising that CU struggled this last year, the SRs on the 2016 team were the cream of the 2013 class and a much better 2012 class, whereas the SRs on the 2017 team were the cream of a bad 2014 class and the back end of a pretty mediocre class in 2013.
  • The overall quality of the class and the depth in terms of RR and 247 grade is very, very similar between the '17 and '18 early class.
  • There is a disparity in terms of P5 offers, but the 2017 numbers were bumped up by 3 guys who had more P5 offers than any '18 commit- Polley, Nixon, and Morretti. Similarly, the '18 average was depressed a bit by Stenstrom, who didn't report any other P5 offers although he pretty assuredly had some.
  • On that note, there were only 2 players so far in the '18 class who did not have at least one other reported P5 offer: Stenstrom and Ray Robinson. There were 5 such players in the '17 class: George, Hamilton, Lewis, Chance Lytle, PAige, and Pursell
  • I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the cream of 2017 was better than 2018, but that CU will likely get more contributors out of the '18 class.
Click to expand...

Nice work @Denver_sc !!!

Deserves a ton of rep.
 
TSchekler said:
If the rankings that @TDforTD mentioned yesterday hold true or 5th in the Pac 12 and 35th nationally, I don't see how that can be viewed as anything but a solid B grade.
Click to expand...
People have an unrealistic view of where CU is in national scene. They expect top 25, every year in recruiting and it’s just not feasible. They have to recruit solid players and actually develop them up.
 
TSchekler said:
If the rankings that @TDforTD mentioned yesterday hold true or 5th in the Pac 12 and 35th nationally, I don't see how that can be viewed as anything but a solid B grade.
Click to expand...
It's important to note that our rankings will decrease over time. There is another signing period and our class is already (practically) full whereas other teams will sign more guys the second signing period.

However, I'm happy with the class (Can't be too negative).
 
vinniew_11 said:
People have an unrealistic view of where CU is in national scene. They expect top 25, every year in recruiting and it’s just not feasible. They have to recruit solid players and actually develop them up.
Click to expand...
Last year's class was a top 25 class, so it can definitely be done, but you're right; I don't think CU is a top 25 recruiting program year in, year out. Could a dynamic staff from top to bottom change that? Of course, and hopefully there are staff changes to attempt to raise that level, but if CU is hovering between 25-35 nationally and 5-7 in the Pac 12, I don't see how people wouldn't be happy.
 
TSchekler said:
Last year's class was a top 25 class, so it can definitely be done, but you're right; I don't think CU is a top 25 recruiting program year in, year out. Could a dynamic staff from top to bottom change that? Of course, and hopefully there are staff changes to attempt to raise that level, but if CU is hovering between 25-35 nationally and 5-7 in the Pac 12, I don't see how people wouldn't be happy.
Click to expand...
CU is better than that. Should average out over a 5-year period to around #25 in recruiting when things are right in Boulder.
 
Buffnik said:
So you agree. Things aren't "right" yet.

Win at the level CU traditionally wins at + hire assistants who are active recruiters = average class would be around #25.
Click to expand...
Like I said, 25-35 in any given year should be considered pretty solid. I think it's possible for a top 20 class every so often with the addition of a few more dynamic recruiters.
 
Last year was the last time I would grade us on the "decade of awfulness" grading curve. That puts this class right around a B- with the chances for a B. It's a very deep class without any reaches, and it fills pretty much all the boxes you need it to. Getting a pass rusher tonight might bump it to a B. It's still not a top 25 (or even top 30) class.
 
Last edited:
Yea obviously having a top-25 class each year would be amazing, but the fact of the matter is the buffs are not a perennial powerhouse. Silver-lining is they are well on their way. Look at all of the things a potential recruit would have on his list and you can't tell me that CU has not worked to offer those things. The Champion Center was a massive move that when combined with the improvement of MM's staff, CU could become a team that pulls 25-30. To expect more is a little outlandish at this point, especially when you consider the recent move to the pac-12. If we get Jordan Allen, MM will have outdone my expectations. A lot of this forum likes to harp on the assistant coaches abilities, personally I have been nothing but enthused by what I saw. Everytime I watch a cowboys game, they talk about Cheeto. I give this class a relative B+ considering we are coming off a 5-7 season where the buffs greatly underperformed and were not fun to watch.
 
Kept Stanley, Filip, Taylor, and Smith. Yuge.

Flipped Antwine

I'm thinking a.. B? Maybe B- since we didn't seem to get a pass rusher barring a surprise with Jordan Allen. Perhaps we can find something in January. It's definitely not a disaster class, but I do think we can do better.
 
The team goal is to win the Pac-12, so every measure has to be against where we end up compared those standing in the way.
1-2 = A
3-4 = B
5-7 = C <--- we are here
 
zbuff said:
The team goal is to win the Pac-12, so every measure has to be against where we end up compared those standing in the way.
1-2 = A
3-4 = B
5-7 = C <--- we are here
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is hilariously shortsighted. Washington is #10, Oregon is #13 and nobody else is in the top 30, USC will most likely end higher. The difference between UCLA, Cal, WSU and colorado is #36-43 on 247’s site. So UCLA at #4 is a B for hauling the #36 class but colorado, cal and WSU are C’s because they’re 37, 39 and 43 nationally? Round hole meet square peg.

We can go off rivals too where only cal, WSU, Oregon and Washington are head of us and we’re 36. So we’re still a C but so is USC and Arizona. UCLA with their 92 average is a “D” class by your scale. I bet they’re pissed over there...
 
Buffsrock85 said:
So UCLA at #4 is a B for hauling the #36 class but colorado, cal and WSU are C’s because they’re 37, 39
Click to expand...
All of this is subjective. There was a chart someone put together that identified Rivals and 247 rankings as well as P5 offers. My response to that is, someone is calling the glass half full. What about players Stars/rankings? There are no 4 stars and definitely no 5 stars in this recruiting class. If you look at UCLA's class, it has seven 4 star players. UCLA also has 10 players in the ESPN top 105 ranked players. I would say that is a very good class. CU has no players in the ESPN top 300 and zero players with 4 or 5 stars. So while this is all subjective depending on the data you pull, I would bet Rick George is not okay with trailblazing to find over 100M in funds for the new facilities, only to have the coach pull an average class nationally, no players in the top 300 and zero 4 and 5 star players. I am not saying ESPN is the ultimate source, they are not, but there is not a recruiting service out there that thinks CU's class is anything more than marginal nationally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top