Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

2014 Class Grade

73. This grade has a small curve given to it that considers the state that the program has been in. With that being said, it seems that the athletic gap between CU and the PAC is continuing to widen.

I was initially underwhelmed with bringing in essentially the entire SJSU with the large budget that was given and this kind of brings up those initial feelings. Some of the continuity of the staff and dramatic improvement with penalties/fundamentals eased some of that worry. I didn't expect a great recruiting class from this staff, but I expect improvement and player development (which is something that couldn't really be expected in previous years). Coach them up and my hope is that attrition with this class stays down and that development will make them play better than the 73 grade, but until that happens...
 
Last edited:
I don't really care about the overall team rankings, but we finished below traditional powerhouses such as Temple and Western Michigan. If that isn't deserving of an above average grade, then I don't know what is.
 
DBT said:
How would you grade based on reasonable expectations considering where this program is right now? Was it much better than could have been expected (A), better than expected (B), what was expected (C), worse (D), or much worse (F)? I'd go in the B- range.
Click to expand...

I would still go in the C- range. Football recruiting does not occur in a vacuum. When you look at the rest of the conference, we have a ways to go.
 
One question I have is can Mac recruit at an elite level if and when we start having success? Actually a couple of questions. First, now that he's been in place over a year and kind of established himself a bit, will he have a significant step up with next year's class? Then, if he gets us turned around, can he recruit at an elite (consistent top twenty) level?
 
Duff Man said:
I would still go in the C- range. Football recruiting does not occur in a vacuum. When you look at the rest of the conference, we have a ways to go.
Click to expand...
Man, glad you weren't my physics professor. You're a tough grader!
 
DBT said:
One question I have is can Mac recruit at an elite level if and when we start having success? Actually a couple of questions. First, now that he's been in place over a year and kind of established himself a bit, will he have a significant step up with next year's class? Then, if he gets us turned around, can he recruit at an elite (consistent top twenty) level?
Click to expand...

Only time will tell. He recruited well enough to turn SJSU in to a top 25 team. Granted it was in a much weaker level but he also didn't have the resources.

We need to get the facilities built, we need to develop players, we need to have some solid in game coaching. Get those three done and we will be winning enough to get the attention of better quality recruits. The cycle is simple. Winining = better recruits, better recruits = more wins, more wins mean better recruits.

I may be a sunshine pumper but it seems to me that we are finally on the way to building facilities. I also have seen signicant improvements in player development and on field coaching. I am also seeing an upgrade in the quality of our recruits.

We didn't win a lot of recruiting battles with other PAC schools but we did manage to find a keep a number of guys who other schools came in on later. What I don't see in this class is the Sun Belt level athletes that we have filled the back end of our classes with in recent years, guys who's only other offer or even interest was NE Louisiana or Idaho State.
 
I'm more concerned with whether MacIntyre can win against an elite level of competition. If he does, the recruiting will be excellent under him.
 
MtnBuff said:
This shouldn't be a surprise, it's a message board. Contrary opinions are make discussion and keep a board going. If everybody agreed all the time why would we bother.

There are a number of posters on this site who tend to throw stuff out that seems to be there more for a reaction than to inform. There are others who tend to be contrary in their thinking but may have some supporting arguments to back them up. Again just because a position is supported by somebody else's opinion on another website doesnt' make it right either but it does add to the discussion.

I disagree with Duff on certain things but I do respect his opinions. It is clear that he puts time and effort into formulating them and isn't just throwing crap against the wall.

Rating recruiting classes will always end up a personal measure. If a person wants and thinks we should be recruiting at a national championship level then a class like we got this year would be no better than a D-. How many of the kids we signed would likely ever see the 2-deep at Bama, LSU, FSU, USC, tOSU, etc.

On the other hand if the intent is to be better than we have been recently and beat the other local (non-B5) conferences we certainly are much better than CSU, Wyo, AFA, etc. The grade then comes out as at worst an A- since those schools would gladly take virtually everyone on our list.

I want to see CU back contending for conference championships but as far as we have fallen this isn't going to happen quickly. If you judge based on does this class move us forward in comparison to the rest of the conference, especially the lower half then I give it about a B. I see a few guys who are likely to turn into difference makers and a lot of guys who will develop into players who at least belong on the field against other PAC 12 teams, something I couldn't say about a lot of the players that M2 inherited when he took over the job.

I don't think that either Duff or DBT are out of line, just different perspectives. I do think that it would be fair to expect that while I can argue B for this class this year the exact same class two years in the future would recieve a much lower grade
Click to expand...
We're right there with csu, and SJSU. Im not so sure that csu would trade many members of their class with ours. If anybody besides Nash is happy being competitive with the teams In our geographical vicinity in recruiting, then I dont know what to say. Things are even worse than I imagined.
 
Buffnik said:
I'm more concerned with whether MacIntyre can win against an elite level of competition. If he does, the recruiting will be excellent under him.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily buy wins automatically flips a switch to elite recruiting. Whole other ballgame at that level.
 
Duff Man said:
I don't necessarily buy wins automatically flips a switch to elite recruiting. Whole other ballgame at that level.
Click to expand...

Other guys have taken over programs in trouble and done much better pulling guys in.

That's a fact.

The pundits have our class at 10th out of 12 in the conference.

The pundits have our class rated between 60th and 80th overall. There are roughly 60-70 teams in major conferences depending on how you count.

This staff is going to have to win against better athletes regularly and do it quickly.

These are the facts. They are indisputable.

The rest is hope and color commentary.
 
Liver said:
Other guys have taken over programs in trouble and done much better pulling guys in.

That's a fact.

The pundits have our class at 10th out of 12 in the conference.

The pundits have our class rated between 60th and 80th overall. There are roughly 60-70 teams in major conferences depending on how you count.

This staff is going to have to win against better athletes regularly and do it quickly.

These are the facts. They are indisputable.

The rest is hope and color commentary.
Click to expand...

We were a little more than "in trouble". Also, your last statement is not a fact. And, while it is a fact that the pundits have us ranked the way they do, their rankings are based on opinion.
 
Liver said:
Other guys have taken over programs in trouble and done much better pulling guys in.

That's a fact.

The pundits have our class at 10th out of 12 in the conference.

The pundits have our class rated between 60th and 80th overall. There are roughly 60-70 teams in major conferences depending on how you count.

This staff is going to have to win against better athletes regularly and do it quickly.

These are the facts. They are indisputable.

The rest is hope and color commentary.
Click to expand...

Let me quess you just watched "A Few Good Men."

The FACT is that we are talking about sports, which is never an exact science and more specifically we are talking about recruiting which is the least exact part of an inexact science. There is no question that on paper or by appearances this class is not that great. Some of us believe that HCMM is a guy that can spot diamonds in the rough as well as anyone and is more clever than the idiots whose job it is to analyse the inexact science. He has done it before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top