1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Patterns of Success

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Walter White, Nov 3, 2011.

  1. Walter White

    Walter White Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    19
    In my view, here are the critical patterns for successful football in a BCS conference. And I would define success for CU as typically winning at least 2/3 of the conference games with a legitimate run on a P12 championship every so often. I don’t think it’s realistic to expect to be at the very top of the conference nearly every year. Only a few BCS schools can realistically have those expectations (USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc.).

    1. Superior performance at the QB position. To state the obvious, this is the most important position on the field, by far. You can have a team loaded with talent, but if you’re not getting quality play at the QB position you’ll struggle (Florida, Texas, others). Cody was an absolute debacle. Although he seems like a good dude, the guy was not even close to being a D1 talent. Not even close. I think he probably could have been a solid to exceptional QB at a Division 2 school, but he had no business being in a CU uniform. No way for CU to overcome that. Hansen is better, but I don’t think he’s a starter for a BCS school. Backup, ok, but not a starter in the Pac 12. Looking ahead, I think CU could be in a good situation with Dillon and Wood. This is a potential, and very important, bright spot for CU.
    2. Recruiting wins in Colorado. Although there is nothing special about Colorado recruits (or recruits from anywhere), the reality is that you need to be able to depend on the local market for a nice chunk of your top talent. Recruiting is like real estate—location, location, location. That’s just the way it works. CU cannot rely only on out of state recruiting to land 4-star type guys. Look at Washington, perfect example. In 2011 they had five 4-star recruits. Guess what? Four of them were from Washington. Similar situation with Wisconsin over the past few years. These are two schools that I believe are similar to CU in a number of ways. CU needs, at a minimum, at least two or three 4-star guys from Colorado each year. CU can’t keep striking out on the best in-state talent.
    3. Recruiting wins against other BCS schools, and against Pac 12 schools in particular. In general, if CU is going to beat Pac 12 teams on the football field then CU needs to beat Pac 12 schools in the recruiting field. CU cannot fill its roster with players that no other Pac 12 school offered and expect to win consistently. Of CU’s current recruits, I’d say that there are only a few real head to head wins. We’ll see where CU is in Feb, but so far, not so good.
     
    MontanaBuff likes this.
  2. skibum

    skibum Peed in your Cheerios. Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,041
    Likes Received:
    1,206
    In general, I agree with you. I would nit-pick a little on #3 though. If we're recruiting down in Texass, and we get a kid that gets an offer from one or more of OU, UT, Okie-Lite, etc - I don't give a **** if "no other Pac 12 school offered." That's a good commit.

    Put it this way: if we're recruiting in "Pac 12 country," I'm going to be worried if there are no other Pac 12 offers or if we don't win some battles when there are other Pac 12 offers. For kids geographically outside of the Pac 12's footprint though, change "Pac 12" to "Whatever BCS conference is 'local' for that recruit" in the previous sentence.
     
  3. Walter White

    Walter White Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    19
    Well said, and that's what I meant, although I didn't say it very well. Exactly right, if you're recruiting in the Big 12 footprint for a guy and no other Big 12 teams are offering him then that's a red flag. Same deal for any "conference footprint".
     

Share This Page