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!

The Great Recruiting Rankings non-Conspiracy

A. Conspiracy against CU and most commits drop after committing.

B. Most CU commits are underrated.

C. Stars and rankings are meaningless.

D. I trust the coaches.

Check any and all that apply.

A) There’s no “conspiracy against CU” but from the outside looking in they seem to favor recruits and schools scouting by bumping ratings artificially. You can call it a conspiracy if you like, that’s fine. I will firmly believe if he was committed to OSU his rating never changes. Until recruiting sites publish, “this is why his rating is changing” I have nothing to go on. It’s the off-season, what exactly are they rating him on? Did they over rate him to begin with? Why did that happen? Because he chose OSU so early? It’s just what I’ve seen, I don’t think anybody is claiming some conspiracy.
B) see C
C) Nope. They’re usually pretty spot on but it’s just a number, there’s more to a recruit than their ratings. Some end up sucking and some under rated excel.
D) have to
 
A) There’s no “conspiracy against CU” but from the outside looking in they seem to favor recruits and schools scouting by bumping ratings artificially. You can call it a conspiracy if you like, that’s fine. I will firmly believe if he was committed to OSU his rating never changes. Until recruiting sites publish, “this is why his rating is changing” I have nothing to go on. It’s the off-season, what exactly are they rating him on? Did they over rate him to begin with? Why did that happen? Because he chose OSU so early? It’s just what I’ve seen, I don’t think anybody is claiming some conspiracy.
B) see C
C) Nope. They’re usually pretty spot on but it’s just a number, there’s more to a recruit than their ratings. Some end up sucking and some under rated excel.
D) have to

Your mocking comment about the high 3* narrative misses the point. Getting hung up on whether a player is a high 3* or low 4* player is kinda pointless because the difference is mostly negligible. If CU recruits 20 high 3* players a year without one of them crossing the 4* threshold, CU will have plenty of success.

I cannot stress enough how badly CU has been boat raced in the overall recruitments of high 3* players. We end up playing (and losing to) a lot of those players every season. The 3* bump the middle and bottom of the last several classes have is just as telling. The lack of depth across the board can easily be attributed to the token "3*" players we keep signing. That is the area which should be of more concern to Buffs fans.
 
I would disagree that the rating are "pretty spot on." If Wray's offer list is close to legit then he is or should be a 4* prospect. I put a lot more weight on the offer list.

Usually the rating eventually move to conform to the offer list. Why in this case they would downgrade a guy who has an offer list like Wray makes little sense.

They have no reason to have a "conspiracy against CU" but I have noticed over the years that the bigger and more willing to spend the fan base is the more favorable some of the ratings become. Look at some of the 4* prospects who have flamed out in Lincoln.

Yes, sir. That was mostly my point here. The ratings seem to conform to the offers and we’ve seen players lose their ratings after decommitting from certain colleges. I’m questioning what prompted the changes.
 
Your mocking comment about the high 3* narrative misses the point. Getting hung up on whether a player is a high 3* or low 4* player is kinda pointless because the difference is mostly negligible. If CU recruits 20 high 3* players a year without one of them crossing the 4* threshold, CU will have plenty of success.

I cannot stress enough how badly CU has been boat raced in the overall recruitments of high 3* players. We end up playing (and losing to) a lot of those players every season. The 3* bump the middle and bottom of the last several classes have is just as telling. The lack of depth across the board can easily be attributed to the token "3*" players we keep signing. That is the area which should be of more concern to Buffs fans.

That was your response when I openly asked what prompted his change in rating the first time. I don’t think asking the question of why his numbers dropped is really that odd, it’s a legit question. Wrays rating won’t dictate if he’s good or not and I don’t disagree the difference is negligible between high 3/low 4. Just questioning the recruiting sites integrity because they seem to do this a lot and it always seems sketchy. It’s not just a CU thing I’m sure.
 
Something made the rating drop. I agree that it would be interesting to find out exactly what the reason was.
 
I can only think of 1 recruit who went from a 3 star to a 4 star after committing to CU. That was Perry last year. Everyone else stays the same or drops. Viska went from a 4 star to a 3 because they didn't believe he had elite speed lol.
 
Perfect. 10 posts about ****ing Elmo remain and discussing the players actual rating or lack thereof is “ off topic.” This website never fails in showing its a bunch of 50 year old children just jerking each other off.
 
Perfect. 10 posts about ****ing Elmo remain and discussing the players actual rating or lack thereof is “ off topic.” This website never fails in showing its a bunch of 50 year old children just jerking each other off.

:rolleyes:

I did not move it, but it was separated into its own thread and was not even moved to the Island. Boo ****ing hoo.
 
A. Conspiracy against CU and most commits drop after committing.

B. Most CU commits are underrated.

C. Stars and rankings are meaningless.

D. I trust the coaches.

Check any and all that apply.
E. They just need a winning season and recruiting will take off!
 
Perfect. 10 posts about ****ing Elmo remain and discussing the players actual rating or lack thereof is “ off topic.” This website never fails in showing its a bunch of 50 year old children just jerking each other off.

You seem confused. Nobody was ****ing Elmo. Elmo was jerking off in Times Square. HTH.
 
:rolleyes:

I did not move it, but it was separated into its own thread and was not even moved to the Island. Boo ****ing hoo.

Just pointing out the obvious, you get triggered so easily. Wait a minute, so does my wife and you’re always right.

Holy ****. I just realized you’re a girl.
 
The question is still valid: why the change in rating? There must be a reason. Does anybody know exactly what that reason is?
 
Perfect. 10 posts about ****ing Elmo remain and discussing the players actual rating or lack thereof is “ off topic.” This website never fails in showing its a bunch of 50 year old children just jerking each other off.
Maybe quit fantasizing about children jerking off, weirdo.
 
He hasn’t looked good in summer workouts.
Is that the reason, or are you just making that up?

I’m not being belligerent. I’m genuinely curious as to what goes into a rating change. I didn’t even think they were actually having summer workouts yet, so this reason seems far fetched to me. I’m willing to admit I could be mistakipen on that, though.
 
Back
Top