Also, simply suggesting CU shouldn’t have “pretty girls” as employees of the recruiting operation or hosts insinuates that sex is the only function they bring, which is obviously really ****ing stupid.
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!
2021 Offseason Thread
- Thread starter slider
- Start date
You just said that the vast majority of P5 programs are not doing recruiting operations any dirtier than CU, and I’m just wondering which programs that are consistently winning (8-10 wins/year) that fall in this category.
How many teams are consistently winning 10 games a year?
The female recruiting assistants are really just an example of more *ahem* aggressive recruiting strategies that have seemingly been dismantled since Tucker left. Maybe that’s an oversimplification, but we have somehow turned guys like Chev, Michaelowski, and Martin into below average recruiters which to me speaks to larger problems within our recruiting operation as a whole.
A project for another time, but how about 8-9 games/year, which is realistically what I think CU can strive for.
Sure, but the "we definitely can't cheat anymore" angle still seems overplayed and actually overshadows legitimate changes which can/should be made this offseason.
Schools like Iowa, Missouri, NC State, Okie Lite, Utah fit that description.
Is it overplayed though? Maybe it’s a Dorrell thing more than an institutional thing given the bball program seems to have figured out how to walk the line.
End of the day recruiting needs to improve in a big way and I’m not seeing any evidence that anything is being done to improve it.
I mean, they nearly hired Sark before it fell through.
But he decided he’d rather wait for a better job than take this one. Why? Why did Butch Jones turn us down? Why did Tucker leave after 1 year? Money, sure but seems like there are institutional problems with this program that make it a bad job. I’m sure it’s a combination of resources for staff and resources for a recruiting operation, but I believe it’s also administration level commitment to doing what is needed to actually field a winner.
I’ve said this before, but if we have decided we want to run a clean program and recruit high character players, that’s fine but don’t sell us the idea that we want to compete for championships.
Might be a fool’s errand, but I think there are some people who think running a clean program does not have to be mutually exclusive with competing for championships.
Not saying CU is a "good job," but that if you weigh all the factors, there may not be that many in the P5. There is a large group of jobs which really are not wholly different in challenges when comparing them.
Each of those programs have at least two of the following, though, whether it’s money, rich recruiting grounds, or more lax academic standards, none of which CU has.
I just think it’s foolish to think CU can ever be more than they currently are without getting closer to the line.
CU has the unenviable position of being as far from rich recruiting grounds as possible, while also being one of the poorest P5 schools. Add to that the diminishing prestige of the Pac12.
Does Iowa have lax academic standards? Really did not know that.
The lax academic standards line is way overblown.
Is it? I’m not saying CU is suffering from Michigan, Notre Dame or Stanford standards, but there have been multiple legit P5 recruits over the last couple years who have been denied.
Well either we are doing something very wrong at an institutional level or we are one of the unluckiest programs in the country over the last 15 years.
I actually don’t know, but they have money and, for the style of football they play, they have some good recruiting grounds (Wisconsin is similar).
And simply saying CU just needs to get better assistants and not toe the line is great, but to get assistants who will markedly improve recruiting, that requires a whole lot more money than CU has shown it’s willing to pay.
So again, in order to run a relatively clean program at CU AND consistently win, they either need a lot more money, or they need to be willing to dive into the grey area.
So again, in order to run a relatively clean program at CU AND consistently win, they either need a lot more money, or they need to be willing to dive into the grey area.
Ah, didn’t know Iowa was a monied school, and didn’t view their recruiting grounds as being fertile, so figured you must have been referencing them in terms of academics. Learned something today.
Yeah not only do we need to increase the salary pool but we need coaches with Texas ties for recruiting and in order to be competitive we need to over pay because it costs so much more to live here than it does in Texas and Oklahoma.
Well I say money because of the BIG affiliation. All Pac 12 programs not named Oregon, USC, UCLA and Washington are at a money disadvantage to even the worst programs in SEC/BIG. I will admit that Iowa and Wisconsin are somewhat exceptions to the rule to some of this because they have philosophies and styles that don’t pit them against the country’s elite programs for recruits
Stanford has plenty of money. Utah also has good support and pays well. Arizona state just charges the **** out of their huge student body to make up for it lol
Yeah I just put Stanford in it’s own group with like Notre Dame. They have a ton to offer that CU doesn’t that helps make up for any limitations
I don't think 15 years ago is particularly relevant.
A more apt comparison is the first five years in Pac-12 versus the last five years.
You are talking 3ish recruits a year. It is background noise.
jumped ship
Well-Known Member
The solution for CU feels straightforward:
- increase the average tenure of a HC to > 3 years
- have a head coach that values recruiting but doesn’t take shortcuts
- focus on high 3 star players, if we target 4 stars make it very specific with a bias towards OL, DL, and QB
- establish a team identity and strong culture to limit attrition
- win 6-8 games a year
KD feels like a good fit for the above at the current moment
- increase the average tenure of a HC to > 3 years
- have a head coach that values recruiting but doesn’t take shortcuts
- focus on high 3 star players, if we target 4 stars make it very specific with a bias towards OL, DL, and QB
- establish a team identity and strong culture to limit attrition
- win 6-8 games a year
KD feels like a good fit for the above at the current moment
My whole point is paying money for assistants and support is the way to do it.
Or we can continue exaggerating a bunch of unsubstantiated things about Mel Tucker.
That’s not background noise for this program right now, though. Replacing 3 marginal players with 3 good ones each year is a big deal for CU.