Recruiting talent complaint.

[buffaholic]

All I'm saying is there is no solid evidence that the guys we are taking are better or worst than our conference peers. Simply, that the ratings are way too unreliable after the blue chippers going to the blue bloods. USC, UCLA, Stanford are doing their thing. Oregon as well, but they sometimes go after a bit of a different breed (Mariota is the poster child for this).

Your point would hold water if in fact there was a lot of evidence to state that teams in the middle tiers that get higher recruiting ratings, do better in the future. I simply haven't seen that correlation.

But the guys such as UW, Cal, ASU, and Arizona? Not sure I'd call any guy they get an upgrade over a kid with no offers that came to out camp. You got to factor in the whole enchilada and we got very few opportunities to miss on guys.

If I'm wrong, why do we play? Why does SJSU bother? Because they would beat UW despite losing the recruiting war in a hugely decisive way - that is why.

 

[Duff Man]

All you can do is laugh. You read this board over the years and everything comes full circle. Most reasonable people understand the importance of recruiting, but there is also the contingent that thinks:

every 3* is created equal ("look at the number of 3* players in this class!"), speed is overrated (magical "football speed" is what matters), height is overrated, in-state recruiting is not important ("would rather have a 2* kid from CA than a 4* kid from CO"), all 4*/5* players are lazy/entitled ("Darrell Scott was a 5* and he sucked"), and the list goes on.

 

[The Ogre]

The irrational whining by the instant gratification crowd in this thread is epic.

 

[Darth Snow]

anyone who starts of post with saying rankings are useless gets ignored the rest of the thread.

 

[Duff Man]

If MacIntyre cannot sign a top 25 class this year, he should be fired.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

anyone who starts of post with saying rankings are useless gets ignored the rest of the thread.

Would you accept "an imperfect indicator even if it does tend to have some predictive power, but that the margin of error increases the further you get from the true blue chip guys at the top" as an acceptable, reasonable compromise answer? :smile:

 

[Duff Man]

What if those teams are landing players we offered after camping with us? Can we safely say those guys can play?

 

[BuffClass90]

If MacIntyre cannot sign a top 25 class this year, he should be fired.

Off with his head!!!! NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nocoolnamejim]

I guess it depends on where they end up landing. I dislike the idea of giving an definitive, unambiguous answer to that sort of question because of the inexact nature of recruiting.

Because I know that probably sounds like a copout, I'd suggest instead looking at who exactly you're losing those players to. Are you losing them to a school like Washington that was used as an example earlier that has been underperforming against their recruiting rankings for years or to schools that are consistently showing themselves as good judges of talent and character?

I view star rankings, height, weight, offer lists, highlight videos, academics, etc. ALL as different data points when I assign a mental likelihood of a player panning out in my own head. I don't view ANY of those data points as useless but as pieces of the overall puzzle. But even then, they are just a small number of the variables that could impact whether a prospect pans out. How do you predict a kid's character? How about physical development? Some positions are easier to project than others. (For example, projecting lineman and in particular offensive lineman can be a real challenge if their bodies aren't already fully developed.)

 

[slider]

The fact that we suck can actually be turned into an "opportunity" for recruits. Not every single recruit picks based off of record alone. Plenty of talented guys just want to play, and we can undoubtedly offer that. And to those arguing that MacIntyre has "nothing to sell." If he can't find anything to sell, then we hired the wrong coach.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

The fact that we suck can actually be turned into an "opportunity" for recruits. Not every single recruit picks based off of record alone. Plenty of talented guys just want to play, and we can undoubtedly offer that. And to those arguing that MacIntyre has "nothing to sell." If he can't find anything to sell, then we hired the wrong coach.

Early playing time is definitely a pitch that I'd be pushing for recruits that want to play in the Pac-12, at a school with strong academics, on a nice campus but don't want to be buried in the depth chart and want the chance to shine immediately.

Recruiting is basically sales. What do you have to offer that other schools don't?

 

[SINKRATZ]

All I'm saying is there is no solid evidence that the guys we are taking are better or worst than our conference peers. Simply, that the ratings are way too unreliable after the blue chippers going to the blue bloods. USC, UCLA, Stanford are doing their thing. Oregon as well, but they sometimes go after a bit of a different breed (Mariota is the poster child for this).

Your point would hold water if in fact there was a lot of evidence to state that teams in the middle tiers that get higher recruiting ratings, do better in the future. I simply haven't seen that correlation.

But the guys such as UW, Cal, ASU, and Arizona? Not sure I'd call any guy they get an upgrade over a kid with no offers that came to out camp. You got to factor in the whole enchilada and we got very few opportunities to miss on guys.

If I'm wrong, why do we play? Why does SJSU bother? Because they would beat UW despite losing the recruiting war in a hugely decisive way - that is why.

You don't think the kids UW, Cal, ASU, or Arizona are getting would be an upgrade over the kids we are recruiting? Interesting considering we are a combined 1-7 against those teams the last 3 years.

The SJSU argument is irrelevant, their classes aren't ranked very high nationally, but they play in the WAC and they have done fine against their WAC peers when it comes to recruiting.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

You don't think the kids UW, Cal, ASU, or Arizona are getting would be an upgrade over the kids we are recruiting? Interesting considering we are a combined 1-7 against those teams the last 3 years.

The SJSU argument is irrelevant, their classes aren't ranked very high nationally, but they play in the WAC and they have done fine against their WAC peers when it comes to recruiting.

Interesting that you mention that.

Under MacIntyre, SJSU generally had the worst (or next to it) class in the WAC.

 

[Duff Man]

At the very least, I hope we see a dramatic uptick for the offensive skill positions (RB and WR). This league is offense-driven and you NEED playmakers. Every decent to good team has them. You don't really develop those guys either, they usually can either play or they can't (PRich is the former, Darrell Scott is the latter).

 

[White_Rabbit]

If I'm wrong, why do we play? Why does SJSU bother? Because they would beat UW despite losing the recruiting war in a hugely decisive way - that is why.

Oh, word? You know that Stanford loss you love to bring up to prove Mac's recruits can play in the P12? You'll never guess who actually beat Stanford last year..

 

[somebody]

The problem with this is that you're looking at the exception to justify subpar recruiting. Of course there are teams that underperform, and of course poor coaching can drag down talented teams, but would a team like Washington have been better off if they had lower ranked recruiting classes? Of course not.

I'd be much more interested in the opposite exception - are there BCS teams out there that regularly recruit in the 50s and 60s, but remain consistently competitive in their conference? Wisconsin is the only program that comes to mind at the moment, though they've had some classes up in the 30s also. Those examples would be more helpful in our current situation IMO.

Hey, he said it was a friendly post, not an intelligent one.

 

[CUFan]

At the very least, I hope we see a dramatic uptick for the offensive skill positions (RB and WR). This league is offense-driven and you NEED playmakers. Every decent to good team has them. You don't really develop those guys either, they usually can either play or they can't (PRich is the former, Darrell Scott is the latter).

This. We lack (and need) speed at the skill positions. I assume most the kids with speed are fairly decently rated (please correct me if I am wrong because I do not frequent recruiting sites).

 

[SINKRATZ]

Interesting that you mention that.

Under MacIntyre, SJSU generally had the worst (or next to it) class in the WAC.

??? False.

Since Mac took over in 2010 their classes were: 2nd, 6th, 2nd, and they are 1st so far this year in conference. SJSU hasn't ranked last since 2008.

 

[White_Rabbit]

I'm just glad we didn't take on the headache that is Deaysean Rippy. Talk about a 4* with issues transferring from his hometown team after his freshman year.

Wait, we took him and all of the same assholes that say ****** recruiting is great were jumping for joy? What.

 

[lawdogg]

This. We lack (and need) speed at the skill positions. I assume most the kids with speed are fairly decently rated (please correct me if I am wrong because I do not frequent recruiting sites).

Kids with size and speed at the skill positions are decently rated. Other kids with great speed, but a bit undersized (like Reggie Turner, for example) aren't rated that high.

 

[rolandftw]

You get the best players that you can get. If they are 2 and 3 star guys, then that is what you have to do. When the opportunity arises, and you can land some very talented transfers or even JC kids, you try to do so as well. If you win more, and improve the facilities you are more likely to get the interest of better recruits.

I do believe that we have got some talented players, they will just need time to be coached up. Hoping that the CU fanbase give Mac 3 years at least, to try to turn it around

 

[o_robbie]

I personally believe we are 3 years away from seeing what all of these project-able guys can do. If we aren't a bowl team in years 3 and 4 I will be upset.

 

[Buffnik]

This coaching staff has been very active with finding talent however it can. Whether that's bringing in transfers, finding JUCOs, signing a 6'7" baseball player with an OT's frame, or going to Mexico to get a kicker.

In general, the results are modest with the overall recruiting. However, early returns on the guys they found last year are good and we can't fault the work ethic & relationship building efforts. If results on the field can just get to mediocre and we get that facilities project started, I truly believe this is a staff that will consistently bring in top talent along with 4 or 5 "discoveries" they are able to make every year.

 

[mattrob]

This coaching staff has been very active with finding talent however it can. Whether that's bringing in transfers, finding JUCOs, signing a 6'7" baseball player with an OT's frame, or going to Mexico to get a kicker.

In general, the results are modest with the overall recruiting. However, early returns on the guys they found last year are good and we can't fault the work ethic & relationship building efforts. If results on the field can just get to mediocre and we get that facilities project started, I truly believe this is a staff that will consistently bring in top talent along with 4 or 5 "discoveries" they are able to make every year.

I understand and appreciate what you're trying to do, but do you truly believe the results we are seeing are the absolute best we can do right now, even given the debacle of the past several years? Do you really believe that we did not have an opportunity to improve the recruiting on the staff without sacrificing “culture", “work ethic", and “cohesiveness"? I definitely respect your opinion, so if that's the case, I'd like to hear it. But if not, I think it's fair to acknowledge that there's still some level of untapped potential here.

 

[mattrob]

For the question above, I guess I'd pose that everyone. It just feels like we're talking about a 6 year old tee ball team here, where half the board is falling all over themselves to give points for effort. I get that this is a drastic improvement over the approach of the previous staff, but is that hard to admit that maybe, just maybe, the results are...less than optimal so far?

 

[Buffnik]

I understand and appreciate what you're trying to do, but do you truly believe the results we are seeing are the absolute best we can do right now, even given the debacle of the past several years? Do you really believe that we did not have an opportunity to improve the recruiting on the staff without sacrificing “culture", “work ethic", and “cohesiveness"? I definitely respect your opinion, so if that's the case, I'd like to hear it. But if not, I think it's fair to acknowledge that there's still some level of untapped potential here.

I think we had the budget to bring in a ringer for the Neinas spot.

And I think it would have made an impact.

But I also respect that this staff hasn't coached its first game yet and we haven't seen a single one of its recruits play college football. So I'm willing to give them the honeymoon period until I see failure.

In terms of the recruiting, if you remember my major critique of the class Embree was pulling together last year it was that there were so few reported offers from BCS programs and almost none from BCS programs that actually had a winning record. That's a problem. It seems to be a bit better now, but not the bump I was hoping for from a new staff.

 

[Zapata]

With the previous new staffs we had seen a bump in recruiting. Hawkins especially, he pulled in the top running back Darrell Scott along with some of the nation's top linebackers (Doug Rippy and Lynn Katoa). D2 also managed to keep some the state's top talent, from jumping the border e.g. Jon Major, Nick Kasa, Nick Kasa, Ryan Miller, Bryce Givens, etc. I will also give a courtesy inclusion to Danny Spond to this group, a starting SLB in the National championship game for Notre Dame - he jumped shipped at the eleventh hour, after seeing the wheels come off of the D2 train in the 2009 season. To a lesser degree albeit, Embree too. brought in some highly sought after players as well.

I suppose though, you can only go back to the well so many times before the allure and excitement of a new staff brings begins to fade MacIntyre might not get the most coveted prospects in year one, but he will bring players that Colorado can succeed with. Once the not so brave but more highly touted players, see that Colorado Football is no longer a bad joke, they too will come - Colorado just has too much offer to keep it from its winning ways.

 

[Buffenuf]

Says the guy with a line of red bars under his name. :rolling_eyes:

If you think everything is rosy and that recruiting is going well, then I suppose I envy your naïveté. I'm a CU alum, Buff fan, and donor so I hope this all works out over the next few years. I think there's a lot to like about coach Mac, but I don't think it's out of line to question some aspects of the program from time to time.

Oh and another thing, go f**k yourself.

Ahhh, Veruka raising the "red bars" argument! (If you must know, that was little Basement Matty's effort against me, for pointing out that since subways kill people, they should thereforebe banned---it's a "gun thang", you wouldn't unnerstand!)

My point has always been: recruiting is an inexact science and its way too early to tell if any class will/has panned out. Look at Hawk's Scott/Katoa class: Top 25, but none of the blue chippers contributed squat or ended up at the next level. But then look at kids like Solder and Bahktiari. Solder 3* at TE; Bahktiari 2*, better known as a LAX player than OL; both developed into top notch players. More than half of last year's NFL 1st rounders were 3 star or less coming out of HS, includuing the top pick who was a 2*. Time alone will tell.

Don't pull that "I'm a CU alum and fan BS" on me, junior. I've been a fan through two CU degrees, likely spanning a time longer than your punk-ass existence started by breaking through that condom and if there's two things I've learned watching the rise and fall, and rise again of many college FB teams, it's, "This too, will pass" and "Patience!"

As for your final request, I'd tell you to Go f*#k your mother, but the Marines in her town just got back from manuevers and she's real busy tonight!

 

[White_Rabbit]

Numbers, how do they work?

 

[GoBuffs08]

My question is how many recruits did water bottle have committed this early when he was a coach? If I remember correctly water bottle was still chasing recruits well into every season. How many did DII have?

I give the staff all the props in the world for their efforts in recruiting. They have not played a game and they have 24+ guys with verbals after a season that highlighted CU as the laughing stock of college football. CU has been a joke of a program for 5+ years and these guys are finding players that on paper look like they have legit PAC talent.

I would love to be getting some *4 and *5 guys, but for crap sake we actually need to show some recruits that the entire team is not going to look like a bunch of retards playing their first season of an organized sport.