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!

Risk-taking in recruiting

o_robbie said:
If you think the boys from San Jose could compete in the Pac 12 then you might be clueless. If you think bigger/stronger/faster doesn't create a competitive advantage as you go from SEC, to MWC, to FCS, to NAIA then you might be clueless and if you think that recruiting kids like we are recruiting now is going to amount to any wins in the Pac 12 than you might be clueless.
Click to expand...

San Jose last year was much like the norm for top end, non-BCS level schools. They had the talent and the coaching that when given a chance to prepare on a one game basis could compete with almost anyone in the BCS. The problem for them was that if forced to line up week after week against BCS talent they just don't have the size and strength to hold up over a full schedule.

What is important to see with the SJSU situation though is that M2 and staff were able to identify kids who could be developed to play at that level and were able to develop them. If they go after the same kids for CU they will fail but if they can find kids who otherwise would go to a MWC school or a bottom end BCS school that can be developed to the level that we need then we will be successfull.

Remember that SJSU was about as bad in relation to their league when M2 got there as CU was in relation to our league last year. The level is different but lets see if the concepts he has learned will translate.
 
1 or 2 character risks per year is the most CU can afford right now and they better have P-Rich level talent to make the reward worthwhile.

Don't forget there's more then just bad publicity and hostile media/townies to contend with. You also have the NCAA just itching to lay down massive penalties on schools like CU so they can turn a blind eye to the $EC.
 
schubeal said:
1 or 2 character risks per year is the most CU can afford right now and they better have P-Rich level talent to make the reward worthwhile.

Don't forget there's more then just bad publicity and hostile media/townies to contend with. You also have the NCAA just itching to lay down massive penalties on schools like CU so they can turn a blind eye to the $EC.
Click to expand...

**** th NCAA. Don't offer anything. Don't cooperate. Hire a team of lawyers. Nothing will ever happen.

CU has traditionally been able to successfully have a number of players growing out of misspent youths. But right now, with culture being re-established, I agree with limiting "risk" to no more than 20% of a class. Maybe 10% this year. We can't have so much attrition.
 
20 percent of the class is what I was saying we needed to go for all along. 4 or 5 risk/reward kids if they are willing to come here. I would especially like academic risks like Jagne where if they can't get in we can keep in contact with them and bring them in as soon as they are ready.
 
schubeal said:
1 or 2 character risks per year is the most CU can afford right now and they better have P-Rich level talent to make the reward worthwhile.

Don't forget there's more then just bad publicity and hostile media/townies to contend with. You also have the NCAA just itching to lay down massive penalties on schools like CU so they can turn a blind eye to the $EC.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the downside to taking on high risk kids. Short of getting the death penalty, CU football is already performing at a level that resembles one where scholarships were reduced and a bowl ban was in place.
 
Auburn up to #11 in the nation. I don't know if they will finish that high but they are pretty dang relevant again.
 
o_robbie said:
Auburn up to #11 in the nation. I don't know if they will finish that high but they are pretty dang relevant again.
Click to expand...

All depends on how many of them actually play for them. Of course it's easier if you don't have to go to class and the police know well enough to leave you to whatever you happen to be doing.
 
Without naming names, there are a ton of both academic and character risks that are not listed here. Some have done very well at CU with the extra attention and others not so much.

The issue hasn't been taking risks - its been taking risks on kids who weren't going to be difference makers anyway. And of course attrition.
 
Last edited:
Some risks have to be taken. I'll leave it up to the coaches to determine which kids they feel should be given a second chance and which ones should not be.

Let's not pretend during the Mac years everyone on the team were academic all Americans that were going to enter the peace corp after graduation or go on a church missions trip. That said, some of those guys took a second chance and surprised everyone by graduating and became outstanding citizens and fathers.
 
The Mac years were full of risks. Back then, the blue blood programs would not bother going into certain areas to recruit. Programs like CU and Miami changed that. Props 48 & 42 were very good to CU.
 
BuffUp said:
some risk's have to be taken just like in investments.
Click to expand...

How many and what kind of risk depend on your desired outcome and ability to absorb losses.

When you are recruiting into a roster that is made up of BCS level athletes you can afford to risk attrition in the hopes of gaining a difference maker who can move you to the next level.

When you are playing with a roster that doesn't allow you to put competitive players on the field at a significant number of positions those recruiting slots are much more important. In our case the attrition is a big part of why we are in that situation.

To me a big part of it is how well a teams culture can manage and influence the risky kids. When CU was a consistent top 5 team we had a bunch of kids who would be looked at now as high risk kids. That team also had a coaching staff that had its finger on the pulse of the members of the team and those teams also had a bunch of leaders on the team that held teammates accountable for their actions.

Our current staff hasn't had time to build that strong culture that allows a lot of the risky kids to be managed. I'm not opposed to taking risk to move us forward but the staff has to be more careful than they will be in the future once the program is more firmly in place.
 
I guess we need to define risk....someone points to Josh Smith, how was he a risk? He did not have issues academically or otherwise. He just decided to leave. Every school has attrition. Just because they leave does not mean they were a risk to offer.
 
SD Buff said:
Without naming names, there are a ton of both academic and character risks that are not listed here. Some have done very well at CU with the extra attention and others not so much.

The issue hasn't been taking risks - its been taking risks on kids who weren't going to be difference makers anyway. And of course attrition.
Click to expand...

To add to SD Buff's points. I don't see that CU has taken a lot of risks over the past several years rather we just have not brought in enough talent. Don't worry about the guys that leave worry about the guys you have and unfortunately we don't have enough to compete at this level.
 
BlackNGold said:
I guess we need to define risk....someone points to Josh Smith, how was he a risk? He did not have issues academically or otherwise. He just decided to leave. Every school has attrition. Just because they leave does not mean they were a risk to offer.
Click to expand...

Scotty McKnight is an example of a "character risk" who worked out. Boise State dropped him over the scandal at his high school with something he wrote as a joke.

We definitely need to seize on certain opportunities.

But on the other side, I do feel like we've had too many Nuckols and Asiata types that only accepted offers to CU because they didn't really have other options after other programs backed off.
 
o_robbie said:
This is exactly the type of guy CU should be trying to get to stay. I know he has some character risks but we need athleticism right now to get this program turned around faster than the 10 year plan we are currently on.
Click to expand...

Quick question - who in the heck are you talking about and what is the context?
 
Buffnik said:
Scotty McKnight is an example of a "character risk" who worked out. Boise State dropped him over the scandal at his high school with something he wrote as a joke.

We definitely need to seize on certain opportunities.

But on the other side, I do feel like we've had too many Nuckols and Asiata types that only accepted offers to CU because they didn't really have other options after other programs backed off.
Click to expand...
and Spruces incident with the weed in the car. PRich's stealing. When you are talking about 17 year old kids, they are all risk.
 
BuffUp said:
and Spruces incident with the weed in the car. PRich's stealing. When you are talking about 17 year old kids, they are all risk.
Click to expand...

Spruce is an awful example. It was weed in California. Big whoop


Sent from a red light
 
BuffUp said:
and Spruces incident with the weed in the car. PRich's stealing. When you are talking about 17 year old kids, they are all risk.
Click to expand...

This is the big issue. 17 yo kids will do dumb things. The question is are these dumb (negative, destructive, illegal, etc.) activities a mistake or a part of a pattern of behavior. There are some pretty good kids who have done and gotten caught for things that are notable and not good for publicity but that are also way out of character for the kid. On the other hand there are kids that have been caught doing things that are just the tip of the iceberg of their negative behavior.

For a program to be successfull they need to figure out if the kids they are recruiting are likely to continue with negative behavior or if they just made simple mistakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top