Then hopefully, wright,crawley, williams, powell, mcnamara, rios,thomas, and others will prove you wrong..:nod:
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!
What criticism is acceptable in the recruiting forum?
- Thread starter You Assholes
- Start date
Then hopefully, wright,crawley, williams, powell, mcnamara, rios,thomas, and others will prove you wrong..:nod:
I haven't given them anything to prove wrong, though. It's probably why all of our 4*s don't turn out well. If I gave them more **** they'd probably be 1st round picks.
Where it becomes a struggle is with the opening of the floodgates that happens.
Someone posts something that adds to the discussion like, "The offer list concerns me, but I like his film." Ideally, it's followed with something to the effect of, "Welcome to the Buffs. Show up with a chip on your shoulder and prove all those other programs wrong."
But then someone sees a post like that and can't resist posting something like, "Glad we beat out Southwest Idaho Tech for this guy."
It's that post that I have a problem with. It's sarcastic and adds nothing. It also brings the reactions from others who get offended when someone fires a snide remark at a new Buff. Sometimes those reactions are on point and sometimes they're not. When the response ends up being something like, "Ratings don't matter. Look at Bakhtiari", it then sets off a firestorm. Exceptions don't disprove the rule when we're talking about probabilities. Seeing someone use faulty logic to dispute a position people agree with causes a bunch of other people to jump in to defend the position (even though they would have otherwise held back out of respect for a kid who just became a Buff).
And this is when it gets really bad because I have to waste time cleaning up a recruit thread for a distracting argument we've all seen too many ****ing times and does nothing positive for AllBuffs or the program. It's a pain in my ass and the asses of the other mods. And, hell, we don't even care if you guys want to have that debate in this forum in a thread that goes on for 100 pages and gets re-created for every single recruiting cycle. I even participate in that a bit, as do other mods.
Just don't pollute the profile threads of individual recruits with it, especially after a commitment.
Also, I fully realize that some people get annoyed with praise and excitement for a recruit when they feel that reaction is over the top based on offer list, star rating, film, size, speed or whatever. And you know what? Often times the annoyed people are right. But there are ways to pull someone back a bit without ****ting on a kid who just committed to being a Buff. If there's not, PM me, BB or another mod with, "You've got to rein this idot in. He's off the deep end."
In the end, everyone needs to understand that this forum is going to skew positive. By a lot. There are two very good reasons for that.
1. A positive board is more fun for more people.
2. A positive board is a positive force for CU athletics.
We can't take it so far that we lose credibility or objectivity. I want to know when someone thinks we're crossing that line.
But as I've said before, if this board stops being fun or stops being good for CU's success, I'm gone and I'm sure a lot of people will also be abandoning this place. Specifically for the Junta, we don't make a dime while extending a lot of time, effort and passion on this. It has to be worth it to us.
Roger, not fighting the no offers/stars battle in recruit threads.
I am glad we are having this conversation. My main point here is that once someone has received an offer and accepted it he is now a Buff. But a Buff with 0 playing time and not even living in the city yet. Let's not get negative on them at the time when they are high on us. Rather than criticize them before they have played a down in a Buff uniform (or not because they are not showing the dedication in practice, etc.), let's welcome them to the family. If they are good enough to get an offer from Embree, EB, et. al and interested enough in what CU is building, we should embrace them. Until then, reasonable critique of potential candidates seems reasonable to me.
What 'Nik said. allbuffs.com has moved up in the world in terms of presence. When our recruits, their parents, or others hit google, we're very likely to come up. As we know these people visit our site. I'm all for a barzil recruiting subforum.
Hey White Rabbit-I see you can be reasonable too :lol: I personally wasn't suggesting we can't discuss stars and offers in recruit threads but was suggesting that once they are in the fold-they have accepted an offer from us-we should welcome that recruit with open arms as they are a new member of the Buff family. But Nik will make a call on this.
:lol:
As many of you know, I will go a lot more candidly negative in Barzil or chat. So follow my lead. If you want to be a whiny bitch, pay for the privilege.
I love you, but stop with the goddam laughy face.
You too dick face.
I thought it was this one that annoyed you:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Now that's just over the top!!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The Guest
Guest
Boyd is essentially the same as pabuff, but without all of the important meetings.
Wrong. That's the other new guy, Aeroxx.
35 is the new 17. Except for women.
The Guest
Guest
That dumbass is pretty much pabuff except with even more important meetings.
We're all 35.
You're a dumbass! Boyd is cool. No one's got more important meetings than pabuff.
Thanks for the love! Been a Buff fan since 1990 even though I had never lived in Colorado. I was blown away by the Sal Aunese story and then the National Championship thing. I then actually moved to Denver in the 1990s and graduated with a Ph.D. at CU in 2001. Never missed a home game during my 6 years in Colorado (3 of those in Boulder). I even have a tattoo of a Buffalo somewhere
I was pint sized running back in H.S. recruited by Division 3 schools but gave up that dream a LOOONG time ago-now I just like to live vicariously through these freakin studs we are recruiting now. BUFFS4LIFE!Go Buffs!
The Guest
Guest
Thanks for the love! Been a Buff fan since 1990 even though I had never lived in Colorado. I was blown away by the Sal Aunese story and then the National Championship thing.
I then actually moved to Denver in the 1990s and graduated with a Ph.D. at CU in 2001. Never missed a home game during my 6 years in Colorado (3 of those in Boulder). I even have a tattoo of a Buffalo somewhere
I was pint sized running back in H.S. recruited by Division 3 schools but gave up that dream a LOOONG time ago-now I just like to live vicariously through these freakin studs we are recruiting now. BUFFS4LIFE!
Go Buffs!
FIFY
It's just a little thing, Dr., but man, it makes a difference. Rugged refuses to read more than three lines clumped together.
If you apologize for the Heisman thread, then we're cool.
The Guest
Guest
I was talking about Aeroxx, ****-for-****. Not Boyd.
I hear you on the Heisman thread. I think I didn't present the idea correctly the first time. I was trying to get at if people think we have the coaches, system and trajectory to be in position to have a player at least in the Heisman conversation. I wasn't asking people to project who would be a Heisman candidate for us. More often than not Heismans are won by dominant programs in BCS conferences. But iiright (FYI that is Yuri speak for alright), I'll apologize sir-I will never talk about CU and Heisman again until we have someone in the national conversation. Deal?
The Guest
Guest
Now you're just ****ing with me.
**** for ****?