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!

Guess CU's final recruiting rankings.

FLounder

Most Hated Poster of the Year 2016, 2018, 2022
Club Member
We haven't gotten a single commit yet for the class of 2016, so I suppose it's a great time to post your guesses of where we end up on Rivals final recruiting rankings.

Does Mike Mac finally break the "hump" of under recruiting.

Does the #JimLeavittEffect really work?

Do we win 7 games, to give us major momentum.

Do the silver uniforms work there magic and pull of a huge upset to gain confidence from recruits.


We end up a respectable #33 for such a small class.
 
Final class ranking is going to be rough this year because of it being such a small class. Recruiting could be substantively better, but the final ranking only marginally better due to the size of the class. A ranking in the top 30 with this size of class would be very good. I suspect that top-45 would be a dramatic improvement in class quality over the past few years, and even maintaining the same ranking would represent an improvement in the quality of recruit in the class.
 
Probably sub-60s because of class size, really depends on how many scholarships we end up being able to give. Top 50 in avg. star rating. Most (if not all) recruits will have P5 offers.
 
Regarding class size, I think it will end up being in the 15-18 range once attrition hits.
 
I can see us ranked 42-45 in terms of avg star rating. Class rank will be lower maybe 64-67. We'll get some 4*'s due to the facility being built, new unis on the players, and WINS!!
 
I guess I should have posted a prediction: top 50 by average stars (or rating), 60-65 overall.

And I really hope I'm wrong, and we do better than that.
 
Recruitniks can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you could almost cover this last class's rankings with a blanket from 35 to 75 +/-. Then there was a noticeable jump once you got below 35 and probably another jump below, maybe, 15 or 20. So, and I'm not playing, but if we were in the 40 to 50 range with a small class, I'd think that would be pretty good.
 
I hate the ranking by total size...should be average stars. Using average stars, I'm guessing low 50s-mid 40s.
 
In total points: 56 in nation, 11th in pac 12

in ave stars: 44th in nation, 10th in pac 12
 
With a small class, focus on rating isn't fair. I'd be very happy with a class between 3.25 and 3.5 average stars. That would take a culmination of a lot of positive things!
 
With a small class, focus on rating isn't fair. I'd be very happy with a class between 3.25 and 3.5 average stars. That would take a culmination of a lot of positive things!

I'm pretty sure everyone would be happy with a class that had more 4* signees than 3* signees.

To put it in perspective for everyone using the 2015 class ranks on Rivals:

- Every team that averaged a 3.4 or better had a Top 15 class
- Classes ranked below 3.0 started at #33
- Only 2 classes ranked 3.25 or above weren't in the Top 25 (UNC at #28 and Michigan at #50 - UM only had 14 signees)

As far as the effect of smaller classes:

- UCLA was the only team in the Top 25 with fewer than 20 signees (#13 with 19 guys)
- UNC and Arkansas were the only 2 teams between 26-40 with fewer than 20 signees (UNC at #28, UA at #40)
- From 41-60, we only saw 4 teams with under 20 signees (Baylr at #43, Vandy at #48, Michigan at #50, Maryland at #54)

With 9 seniors, if we're around 14 signees it would take a class like pcbuff says to get into the Top 50. Anything under 20 and you're getting penalized in the rankings. But if CU somehow hit pcbuff's 3.5 average on the high end *cough* *UCLA* *cough* *need better bagmen* *cough* *Adrian Klemm* *cough*, it's likely a Top 15 class regardless of the number of signees.
 
I'm pretty sure everyone would be happy with a class that had more 4* signees than 3* signees.

To put it in perspective for everyone using the 2015 class ranks on Rivals:

- Every team that averaged a 3.4 or better had a Top 15 class
- Classes ranked below 3.0 started at #33
- Only 2 classes ranked 3.25 or above weren't in the Top 25 (UNC at #28 and Michigan at #50 - UM only had 14 signees)

As far as the effect of smaller classes:

- UCLA was the only team in the Top 25 with fewer than 20 signees (#13 with 19 guys)
- UNC and Arkansas were the only 2 teams between 26-40 with fewer than 20 signees (UNC at #28, UA at #40)
- From 41-60, we only saw 4 teams with under 20 signees (Baylr at #43, Vandy at #48, Michigan at #50, Maryland at #54)

With 9 seniors, if we're around 14 signees it would take a class like pcbuff says to get into the Top 50. Anything under 20 and you're getting penalized in the rankings. But if CU somehow hit pcbuff's 3.5 average on the high end *cough* *UCLA* *cough* *need better bagmen* *cough* *Adrian Klemm* *cough*, it's likely a Top 15 class regardless of the number of signees.


Well we just gave MacIntyre 160 million reasons to do better, but unfortunately, he won't get recruiting results. 58th in average stars.
 
With a small class, focus on rating isn't fair. I'd be very happy with a class between 3.25 and 3.5 average stars. That would take a culmination of a lot of positive things!
You'd be happy with an average of 3.25 to 3.5? Man, you need set your sites higher!
 
For contrast, in 2015 Michigan had a 14 player class with an average star rating of 3.29 for the 50th ranked class on Rivals.

I feel like there are no more excuses. Beautiful facilities on one of the most beautiful places on earth. It's CU, and excellence is what should be expected.
 
My expectations: at least half the class has multiple P5 offers, at least half the class is has a positional rating on Rivals, and at least two legitimate blue chip players (consensus 4* or higher). Also, build early momentum for 2017. If we enter May next year with only a couple commits or less, we got issues.
 
My expectations: at least half the class has multiple P5 offers, at least half the class is has a positional rating on Rivals, and at least two legitimate blue chip players (consensus 4* or higher). Also, build early momentum for 2017. If we enter May next year with only a couple commits or less, we got issues.

Very reasonable expectations, IMO. Let's stop with the 3.0 vs 3.29 vs 3.2458347567 ratings. At this point, getting commitments from recruits who have at least 4-5 other P5 programs should be what we're shooting for. Throw in a couple more "blue chippers" with 8-10 other P5 offers and we should all be content.
 
Very reasonable expectations, IMO. Let's stop with the 3.0 vs 3.29 vs 3.2458347567 ratings. At this point, getting commitments from recruits who have at least 4-5 other P5 programs should be what we're shooting for. Throw in a couple more "blue chippers" with 8-10 other P5 offers and we should all be content.

I think we are saying the same thing, just in a different fashion. A couple fours (Blue Chips) and a bit less guys offered by academies and non P-5 schools and were in the same place.
 
I think we are saying the same thing, just in a different fashion. A couple fours (Blue Chips) and a bit less guys offered by academies and non P-5 schools and were in the same place.

A lot less, please. Thsee guys should be sprinkled in, not making up the vast majority of the class.
 
Thought this was worthy of consideration at this time. I believe it emphasizes the critical need for CU to come out of the gate strong this year.
 
Thought this was worthy of consideration at this time. I believe it emphasizes the critical need for CU to come out of the gate strong this year.

The class is shaping up to have more P5 offers than we have had in a long time which is good progress. We need to land a couple more of the florida kids and I would be happy. Our small class size is going to keep our ranking down though.
 
My expectations: at least half the class has multiple P5 offers, at least half the class is has a positional rating on Rivals, and at least two legitimate blue chip players (consensus 4* or higher). Also, build early momentum for 2017. If we enter May next year with only a couple commits or less, we got issues.

I think these expectations were reasonable almost 4 months ago and they look to be on track to being met. Pulling in Watts, Anchrum, Julmisse, T Williams, and Kemp would very much exceed, IMO. All 5 are definitely unlikely, but 2-3 of them would round out a pretty solid class.
 
As a guy who has been a little critical of this staffs recruiting, the recent trend is positive! We've passed a few Pac teams on the average star rankings.
 
Back
Top