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 $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Could USC probation help Buffs?
- Thread starter 77buff
- Start date
It could, but it will help all of the other schools who recruit LA as well (which, of course, is ALL of them). I think that our Pac-12 membership will help as much as anything, because now the coaches can tell the kids that they will be back on the West Coast regularly, rather than once every few years.
So, you think Lane Kiffin can keep the u$c train rolling? I don't.
I listened to the radio last Friday and a national sports talk show mentioned that the Miami Hurricanes was handed to them similar penalties that USC got.
Sure it's not the 'death penalty' but look at the Canes wins & loses and they did go from a strong national power to an average team-
Sure it's not the 'death penalty' but look at the Canes wins & loses and they did go from a strong national power to an average team-
I think this is going to take years for USC to recover from. This is a really, really big deal. Much bigger than we realize. 30 scholarships? You might as well have given them the death penalty. This will be very, very difficult for USC to recover from.
So to answer the question - yes, this will help the Buffs, assuming we have a competent head coach. We don't have one now.
So to answer the question - yes, this will help the Buffs, assuming we have a competent head coach. We don't have one now.
Thats what I'm thinking as well. He'll be under a ton of pressure and pressure + ambition = TROUBLE.
It certainly won't hurt our recruiting in So Cal. Heck, even last year when we had one of our lowest ranked recruiting years ever we still were in competition with USC for a couple guys.
But that said, a school being on probation is not necessarily a hinderance to recruiting.
According to the Mercer University College Football Recruiting Prediction Model, which has accurately predicted the signing of over 70% of the Top 250 prospects every year since 2005 (they only hit on 68% in 2004, their inaugural year)...
"Interestingly enough however, reduced scholarships increase the likelihood of choosing a particular school, holding all else constant. This is likely because reduced scholarships imply reduced competition for exposure and playing time in the future."
However, being under a bowl ban does hurt USC.
Here's the list of factors that do matter:
Whether the athlete made an “official visit” to a specific college
Whether the school is in a BCS conference
The distance from the high school athlete’s hometown to a specific school
Whether the recruit is in the same state as a specific school
The final AP Ranking of a specific school in the previous year of competition
The number of conference titles a school has recorded in recent years
Whether the school is currently under a “bowl ban” for violating NCAA rules
The current number of scholarship reductions a school faces for violating NCAA rules (inverse relationship)
The size of the team’s stadium (measured in terms of seating capacity)
Whether the school has an on-campus stadium
The current age of the team’s stadium
Another interesting tidbit: "factors like the school’s graduation rate, the number of Bowl Championship Series (BCS) bowl appearances, the current roster depth at the recruited player’s position, the number of players from a specific college drafted by the NFL, and even the number of national championships won by a particular program don’t systematically influence the decisions of high school athletes."
But that said, a school being on probation is not necessarily a hinderance to recruiting.
According to the Mercer University College Football Recruiting Prediction Model, which has accurately predicted the signing of over 70% of the Top 250 prospects every year since 2005 (they only hit on 68% in 2004, their inaugural year)...
"Interestingly enough however, reduced scholarships increase the likelihood of choosing a particular school, holding all else constant. This is likely because reduced scholarships imply reduced competition for exposure and playing time in the future."
However, being under a bowl ban does hurt USC.
Here's the list of factors that do matter:
Whether the athlete made an “official visit” to a specific college
Whether the school is in a BCS conference
The distance from the high school athlete’s hometown to a specific school
Whether the recruit is in the same state as a specific school
The final AP Ranking of a specific school in the previous year of competition
The number of conference titles a school has recorded in recent years
Whether the school is currently under a “bowl ban” for violating NCAA rules
The current number of scholarship reductions a school faces for violating NCAA rules (inverse relationship)
The size of the team’s stadium (measured in terms of seating capacity)
Whether the school has an on-campus stadium
The current age of the team’s stadium
Another interesting tidbit: "factors like the school’s graduation rate, the number of Bowl Championship Series (BCS) bowl appearances, the current roster depth at the recruited player’s position, the number of players from a specific college drafted by the NFL, and even the number of national championships won by a particular program don’t systematically influence the decisions of high school athletes."
USC is in trouble, for sure. Can Hawkins take advantage of that? Not likely. That said, assuming we get rid of Hawk asap, the proposed South division of the Pac should be wide open in 2011. Utah will be adjusting to big boy football, UA will win some games they shouldn't and lose some games they shouldn't, UCLA will be mediocre, SC can't win the division and ASU is just not good.
OKCBuff
Well-Known Member
Until I know for sure CU is back at full speed, I don't know if we'll benefit from USC's two-year probation. Now, that after-effects could last years after that, so we could pick up steam there. But in the short term, I'm going on a limb and saying Dennis Erickson and Arizona State will benefit the most in the Pac-12 South, along with Utah.
Timbuff10
Member
With USC being down, now is the time to dump Hawkins and get a big time recruiter (EB) in here so he can start to stock up and have something to work with in a couple years. If we wait out this Hawkins thing for two more years we enter the PAC limping and you know what they say about first impressions. It may take years to recover from starting out with a couple 3-9 type seasons as opposed to starting out as the place that people want to go to.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Think of Oklahoma in the 90's and thats what SC will be like for about a decade IMO. At best they will be like they were before Carroll, ok, but nothing great. Beatable, very beatable!
Costa Rica Buff
Well-Known Member
UCLA will be the primary beneficiary of USC's probation. IMHO, CU MAY get a player or two as a result although I still doubt a player, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, will choose CU that otherwise would have gone to USC.
The bottom line is that until CU has competitive facilities the team will continue to struggle landing top tier recuits.
The bottom line is that until CU has competitive facilities the team will continue to struggle landing top tier recuits.
1. perception of ASU program is about as poor as CU at the moment. DE is dead man walking.
2. UCLA's head coach Rick Neuheisel is a program wrecker. He won't be able to take advantage imo.
3. Univ of Washington had the best winning percentage in the Pac10 for a 30 year period ending in 2000 according to radio here in Utah. UW blames Slick Rick for ending that legacy. (sounds familiar?)
There are a lot of good prospects in Calif, some are 5-star, some are 2-star and everything else. Boise State and Utah may be better than all of the Pac10 schools at their current clip - comprised with a ton of Southern California kids.
This opens the floodgates and a few teams can really benefit, just like Mac took advantage of USC/UCLA's bumbling over 20 years ago. Oregon, Stanford and Washington are the current contenders. The fate of the next decade begins now. We need to win big in 2010 (which will change perceptions and boost recruiting) or lose big enough to oust the HC. Anything in between will not be good.
We were never able to do well in Texas this decade, and given the conference situation, I'd say that pipeline is about closed. We will need to rely on SoCal, close the Colorado border (Stanford will still hurt us though) and absolutely take a national approach of Hawaii to New Jersey, getting a kid here and there. Whatever happens this year, our coaches need to be strong in California for us to be competitive in the Pac12.
2. UCLA's head coach Rick Neuheisel is a program wrecker. He won't be able to take advantage imo.
3. Univ of Washington had the best winning percentage in the Pac10 for a 30 year period ending in 2000 according to radio here in Utah. UW blames Slick Rick for ending that legacy. (sounds familiar?)
There are a lot of good prospects in Calif, some are 5-star, some are 2-star and everything else. Boise State and Utah may be better than all of the Pac10 schools at their current clip - comprised with a ton of Southern California kids.
This opens the floodgates and a few teams can really benefit, just like Mac took advantage of USC/UCLA's bumbling over 20 years ago. Oregon, Stanford and Washington are the current contenders. The fate of the next decade begins now. We need to win big in 2010 (which will change perceptions and boost recruiting) or lose big enough to oust the HC. Anything in between will not be good.
We were never able to do well in Texas this decade, and given the conference situation, I'd say that pipeline is about closed. We will need to rely on SoCal, close the Colorado border (Stanford will still hurt us though) and absolutely take a national approach of Hawaii to New Jersey, getting a kid here and there. Whatever happens this year, our coaches need to be strong in California for us to be competitive in the Pac12.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure about that. We did have a top 20 class a couple years ago in a conference where we had a far worse advantage as far as competing with facilities and admissions with other teams in our conference than we will now. With our situation now, there is no excuse to not be able to recruit some talent out of California and Arizona.
Unfortunately, a class that was top twenty because of recruits like DS, and Katoa. The two biggest recruits in that class hardly seen and never seen the field.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Thats not the point, and there were more in that class that made it top 20. The point is we were able to recruit some top notch talent. Sometimes top notch talent doesn't pan out as in this case. BUt the fact is there is no excuse with our situation now, NONE, ZIP, ZERO!! We are going to be playing in Cali every year, we have always recruited Cali strong, and USC just took a huge blow.
Costa Rica Buff
Well-Known Member
I think its fair to say that was an exception. Without J-Fly, CU doesn't land D.Scott and CU falls out of the Top 20. Obviously there are many factors to recruiting and certainly a school can haul in a good recruiting class without great facilities but I think its foolish to think it will occur year in and year out without them. One or two really good classes a decade just isn't enough to keep a school near the top of the heap.
CU will still land decent recruits because of its location and I THINK being in the PAC 10 will help us land a few more than ususal. But I seriously doubt CU has any chance of becoming a consistent top level team until the facilities situation is addressed.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Still disagree, we were behind in facilities when we had great classes under Mac, Neuheseil and Barnett (in Barneys early years). In fact our senior class on the 1990 team was one of the best in the country and we had the small little lockeroom no bigger than a medium size house. It will snowball from there. Again, there is no reason to say we can't consitently recruit good, none at all. Lack of facilities is not an excuse, and those will hopefully get better now with more money and winning.Sorry I have seen too many good classes signed at CU with average facilities to not buy it. We can and should be recruiting top notch talent consistently, especially with SC down. That is our area!
The thing about being at CU is that you don't need to have the biggest, best, greatest, most wonderful-est facilities in the world to compete for recruits. What you need are facilities that are respectable, and good coaches who know how to win. I think we are a little short on the respectable facilities front right now, but it wouldn't take much to get us there. Remodel the fieldhouse and you're right where you need to be. What we need right now, more than anything, is a competent head coach.
77buff
Well-Known Member
I'm old enough to remember that little white concrete block cell that CU called it's locker rooms. You couldn't squeeze a cat in there on gameday. Still Mac produced Top 10 recruiting programs, but he won football unlike Talkins. Big difference was his winning record, and an administration that was behind the athletic program.
"Small people" on American beach
Idot Buff
Guest
Exactly. We have all been saying this for at least six ****ing months. Man...too bad this change did not happen last November...
Maybe, but historically UCLA has consistently done less with more than just about any school in the country given the level of recruits they typically pull. Also CU's facilities are actually supposed to be pretty damn competitive with just about anybody in the PAC 10 with the exception of Oregon. The PAC 10 hasn't had near the facilities arms race compared to the Big 12 or the SEC. The other thing to note about the PAC 10 is while they may not have many dominant programs beyond USC I think they typically have the most depth as a league top to bottom, leading to great deal of parity rather then being top heavy like the Big 12 or the SEC.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
One of Mac's best class was before CU was winning a lot. '86 with Bieniemy, Alfred, Kanavis, Hemmingway, etc. We were just turning the corner then, not a well known power yet.
Costa Rica Buff
Well-Known Member
I said UCLA would be the primary beneficiary of USC's troubles. I didn't say they would do anything with it:smile2:. I agree with your comment on parity.
I disagree with your comment on the relative state of CU facilities vs. the PAC 10. While facilities in the PAC 10 aren't as nice as they are at most Big Tex conference schools, most are still light years ahead of CU (with the exception of WSU and OSU). I've seen them first hand and its not even close.