What's new
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!

Perspective on CU's Recruiting Dominoes

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Here's how I see it right now for CU and recruiting in the western US.

Understanding that there are outliers who are exceptions to the rule (i.e., in-state or legacy prospects), this is the rule:

CU is not going to win recruiting battles against USC, Oregon, UCLA or Stanford.

For the rest of the Pac-12 teams, upper echelon MWC programs and BYU, and BCS programs from outside our region, CU has a reasonable opportunity to win recruiting battles.

Given that (you may agree or disagree), my feeling whenever one of those Big 4 accepts a commitment is that I'm glad. Even if it was a guy that CU was recruiting heavily. Because those programs only have so many spots and my feeling is that CU will struggle to gain commitments from the region as long as any of the Big 4 are saying that an offer may be coming.

And if we're talking about our recruiting in Texas (plus Oklahoma & New Mexico), the Big 4 becomes UT, aTm, OU, OSU and probably now a Big 5 that includes Baylor.

The battles we can't be always losing are with UA, ASU, UW, Cal, Oregon State, Texas Tech, TCU, etc.
 
You are correct, but we can still be upset that things have changed for CU this much. Makes me sick.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You are correct, but we can still be upset that things have changed for CU this much. Makes me sick.

This is a snapshot of the current situation. In five years we could certainly become a part of the top tier, though each school listed has its challenges. USC's legacy, UCLA's location, Stanfords academic ranking, and Oregon's $$$.

As for the other top teams for Texas kids, there is no way around them unless we find a kid that isn't a homebody.
 
Here's how I see it right now for CU and recruiting in the western US.

Understanding that there are outliers who are exceptions to the rule (i.e., in-state or legacy prospects), this is the rule:

CU is not going to win recruiting battles against USC, Oregon, UCLA or Stanford.

For the rest of the Pac-12 teams, upper echelon MWC programs and BYU, and BCS programs from outside our region, CU has a reasonable opportunity to win recruiting battles.

Given that (you may agree or disagree), my feeling whenever one of those Big 4 accepts a commitment is that I'm glad. Even if it was a guy that CU was recruiting heavily. Because those programs only have so many spots and my feeling is that CU will struggle to gain commitments from the region as long as any of the Big 4 are saying that an offer may be coming.

And if we're talking about our recruiting in Texas (plus Oklahoma & New Mexico), the Big 4 becomes UT, aTm, OU, OSU and probably now a Big 5 that includes Baylor.

The battles we can't be always losing are with UA, ASU, UW, Cal, Oregon State, Texas Tech, TCU, etc.

I'd put TCU in this category as well. See BJ Catalon.
 
Agree and I hope to see the day again when we win an occasional battle with the big 4 in the Pac-12. I wasn't expecting great things, and I'm happy with what we have so far, but I thought we might be doing a little better this year than we have on the recruiting front.
 
Agree and I hope to see the day again when we win an occasional battle with the big 4 in the Pac-12. I wasn't expecting great things, and I'm happy with what we have so far, but I thought we might be doing a little better this year than we have on the recruiting front.

It'll pick up when we show improvement this Fall


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
From an outsider's perspective, I tend to agree with much of what Nik said but would add a few twists.

I look at recruiting as a matter of percentages and momentum. Percentages because it's a fact that some schools are harder to recruit against than others and momentum because we aren't dealing with robots here but 17 or 18 year old kids who can be swayed by excitement, perception, etc.

If you put different schools into different "tiers" in terms of their recruiting power, then that's a relative measurement of what your average level of success might be. Take Colorado and USC, they are obviously not currently in the same recruiting tier. Colorado's chances of beating USC out for a southern California recruit that both are going after could be considered to have a very low baseline average. Maybe 3% or something. (Made up number.) But, let's say that Colorado stuns USC in a head-to-head game, then that percentage will rise a bit. Let's call it 7%. Colorado goes to a bowl game? Percentage might rise a bit further up to 13%. That's the momentum effect.

Colorado probably occupies the same recruiting tier as the lower-to-mid level Pac-12 and Big-12 teams and the upper level MWC teams. But there's only so many prospects the teams in the higher tiers can afford to take and there are going to be leftovers that the schools occupying the tiers below fight it out over, and that's where momentum can have a MUCH larger impact: when you're fighting for a prospect in the same tier instead of punching outside your proverbial weight class.

Over time, if you win enough fights in your current tier, that should translate into more success on the field, which translates to more recruiting success, etc. etc. That's how you move into the next tier up.
 
From an outsider's perspective, I tend to agree with much of what Nik said but would add a few twists.

I look at recruiting as a matter of percentages and momentum. Percentages because it's a fact that some schools are harder to recruit against than others and momentum because we aren't dealing with robots here but 17 or 18 year old kids who can be swayed by excitement, perception, etc.

If you put different schools into different "tiers" in terms of their recruiting power, then that's a relative measurement of what your average level of success might be. Take Colorado and USC, they are obviously not currently in the same recruiting tier. Colorado's chances of beating USC out for a southern California recruit that both are going after could be considered to have a very low baseline average. Maybe 3% or something. (Made up number.) But, let's say that Colorado stuns USC in a head-to-head game, then that percentage will rise a bit. Let's call it 7%. Colorado goes to a bowl game? Percentage might rise a bit further up to 13%. That's the momentum effect.

Colorado probably occupies the same recruiting tier as the lower-to-mid level Pac-12 and Big-12 teams and the upper level MWC teams. But there's only so many prospects the teams in the higher tiers can afford to take and there are going to be leftovers that the schools occupying the tiers below fight it out over, and that's where momentum can have a MUCH larger impact: when you're fighting for a prospect in the same tier instead of punching outside your proverbial weight class.

Over time, if you win enough fights in your current tier, that should translate into more success on the field, which translates to more recruiting success, etc. etc. That's how you move into the next tier up.

So, we agree.

I am talking about the current snapshot.

CU has shown it can consistently bring in Top 20 classes and pull multiple blue chip prospects to Boulder when we're near our high water marks. But right now, we're at a low water mark and I'm talking about, based on that, what I have accepted for recruiting this year (which could actually change for the better before this cycle is over).
 
So, we agree.

I am talking about the current snapshot.

CU has shown it can consistently bring in Top 20 classes and pull multiple blue chip prospects to Boulder when we're near our high water marks. But right now, we're at a low water mark and I'm talking about, based on that, what I have accepted for recruiting this year (which could actually change for the better before this cycle is over).

I disagree. I think our low water mark was 2012. Jon Embree wouldn't get a sniff from a guy like Tim Lynott. Our in-state OL recruiting was an absolute horror show. One after another blue chip OL deciding to go to out of state. There's no denying that has turned around. We're not winning all of them, but we're not losing all of them in spectacular fashion, either. The trajectory is up, which, to me anyway, means we've risen above the low water mark.
 
I disagree. I think our low water mark was 2012. Jon Embree wouldn't get a sniff from a guy like Tim Lynott. Our in-state OL recruiting was an absolute horror show. One after another blue chip OL deciding to go to out of state. There's no denying that has turned around. We're not winning all of them, but we're not losing all of them in spectacular fashion, either. The trajectory is up, which, to me anyway, means we've risen above the low water mark.

That's fair.
 
If you put different schools into different "tiers" in terms of their recruiting power, then that's a relative measurement of what your average level of success might be. Take Colorado and USC, they are obviously not currently in the same recruiting tier. Colorado's chances of beating USC out for a southern California recruit that both are going after could be considered to have a very low baseline average. Maybe 3% or something. (Made up number.) But, let's say that Colorado stuns USC in a head-to-head game, then that percentage will rise a bit. Let's call it 7%. Colorado goes to a bowl game? Percentage might rise a bit further up to 13%. That's the momentum effect.

The actual scientific number is 4.2%
 
TCU is a problem for us.

They are now in a major conference, they win games, they go to bowls, they have guys drafted into the NFL, and for Texas kids mom and dad can come and see them play easily.

Also in Texas don't underestimate the power of the local minister with some of these kids. TCU identifies as a religious school and for the Texas kids coming out of church going protestant families that can be a big selling point.
 
TCU is a problem for us.

They are now in a major conference, they win games, they go to bowls, they have guys drafted into the NFL, and for Texas kids mom and dad can come and see them play easily.

Also in Texas don't underestimate the power of the local minister with some of these kids. TCU identifies as a religious school and for the Texas kids coming out of church going protestant families that can be a big selling point.

TCU is no larger of a problem than TTU, Cal, ASU and Washington. Challenging competition but also competition that CU can and should win some battles for on their turf.
 
TCU is no larger of a problem than TTU, Cal, ASU and Washington. Challenging competition but also competition that CU can and should win some battles for on their turf.

Take a look at majors offered at TCU.

Ranch management
fashion merchandising
interior design
food management
child development
kinesiology
dietics
social work

I'm not sure TCU and CU have the same emphasis on education. They don't even offer Physics.
 
TCU has big appeal as a private institution. The religious affiliation is not as big of an appeal.
 
Back
Top