As of Early Signing Period - 2018 Class Grade

[Kronah]

I went to DeMatha Catholic Highschool (the #1 talent producer in the state of Maryland...and probably pretty high up overall). Some of the kids I went to school with moved to Maryland to play at DeMatha and have a better chance at going D1, but the local kids had extreme amounts of pride in their state. All Marylanders have an insane amount of pride for the state of Maryland, and UMD has finally decided to capitialize on that with their coaching staff. DeMatha, Good Council, Gillman, and all the big power houses all have really close ties with the current UMD staff, so the stats are probably skewed.

 

[8Jah]

Maryland is not a good comparison with CU. Just a different scenario there. People mentioned Oregon and a Washington earlier. To me those are better comparisons. Those schools recruit better than us because they have won way more over the past decade, but their current recruiting is what we can aspire to.

 

[leftybuff]

Late to the thread, but I like the QB. It has been a long time since CU has had 4 quality QB's on the roster.

RB, I like Smith.

I like the TE, but he's kind of an any port in a storm situation. Glad to have him, and he looks like a player, but CU was in serious need of help there.

The WR's are solid. Stanley and Thomas really look to be players. CU is loaded at WR.

Filip is the only OL that looks like he will be more than just depth to me. CU has finally gotten out of the gate recruiting OL, but it is still an area of serious need.

Antwine and Noel-Mustafa are nice to see, but again, CU always seems to be in crisis mode stocking the DL. I think Finau ends up playing with his hand on the ground, not highly recruited, but something just screams FB player when I watch him.

Taylor looks to be a solid OLB, Maddox and Abrams look like they could be instant impact type players.

I gave a C+, upon rethinking it I would give the class a B. It is hard to not view the class through the prism of a continual shortage of quality and depth on the OL and DL, which is why my first reaction was C+. If CU pulls classes like this regularly, they should post a lot of wins.

 

[cu62nu36]

Considering that CU football, from a national perspective, has not played meaningful games (2016 fluke season notwithstanding) since 2001 (&1996 before that) when most current recruits were still in diapers, I'd give MM an A- for this year's recruiting class.

It will climb to an A if he signs Rakeem Boyd. And goes to an A+ if we get Boyd plus another OL and NT/DT.

From an historical perspective on the national CFB stage I've considered CU to be comparable to and a peer of Georgia Tech and Missouri. Our recruiting is right back in line with those programs.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

Considering that CU football, from a national perspective, has not played meaningful games (2016 fluke season notwithstanding) since 2001 (&1996 before that) when most current recruits were still in diapers, I'd give MM an A- for this year's recruiting class.

It will climb to an A if he signs Rakeem Boyd. And goes to an A+ if we get Boyd plus another OL and NT/DT.

From an historical perspective on the national CFB stage I've considered CU to be comparable to and a peer of Georgia Tech and Missouri. Our recruiting is right back in line with those programs.

Did you pick Georgia Tech and Mizzou solely on colors?

 

[cu62nu36]

Did you pick Georgia Tech and Mizzou solely on colors?

Ha ha Busted!

 

[cu62nu36]

Actually though, I think the average Ga Tec fan would scoff at the comparison while Mizzou might be flattered. However, our flirtation with national laughingstock status for the 10 years following GB would make the Tigers fans pissed too.

 

[GoldenSkier]

Our classes would have a much higher average if we weren't in the state of Colorado. Our high school football here just isn't the same level as it is on the east coast or in the south, hence why we dip into texas and california. Being a major state school, if we had more talent here our average would be higher than it is. Another issue was in the past CU wasn't a presence in recruiting here.

Also, I understand the outrage about having websites rank us 35+. I agree in saying that we should be able to get a higher average. However, recruiting classes are like NFL draft classes. We have no idea how good these guys are or if they were ranked correctly until we see them play their careers. Look at Darrell Scott, a 5* who didn't pan out. MM has shown he can make 2* and 3* players into NFL quality players.

 

[BuffLuke80]

I voted a B- at first but could probably say B now. Still would like to add a couple though.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

Actually though, I think the average Ga Tec fan would scoff at the comparison while Mizzou might be flattered. However, our flirtation with national laughingstock status for the 10 years following GB would make the Tigers fans pissed too.

Agreed.

Here's an all-time top 100 AP ranked teams done in 2016, FWIW it has the Buffs #26, Ga. Tech #27, and Mizzou #35.

If you want to rock that Black and Gold/Yellow theme Iowa comes in at #25.

I think the Buffs have some higher highs and lower lows than a lot of other programs. It feels like there's been little space to finish anywhere other than the top 2-3 of the conference or in the bottom 2-3 of the conference going back to the inception of the Big XII. That could just be my recall bias though as the middle of the pack seasons are forgettable.

 

[cu62nu36]

Interesting list. Thanks. I did not know there was a "stat" to back up my assertion.

Interesting to note that we are stuck in 3rd place behind USC and UCLA in the PAC12 South. Then again we were stuck behind Oklahoma and Nebraska in the Big 8 and overcame that occasionally.

Our most advantageous alignment was in the Big 12 North where we only had to overcome nebraska to win the division. Probably why we won so many B12 North titles with what seemed like mediocre teams.

If you look at that list and focus on the teams that are not located in recruiting hotbeds then we're not too shabby. Only nebraska, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and Iowa surpass us.

 

[4BienemyTDs]

Three teams that caught my eye on that list, which is really interested to look at are: Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Iowa

Those 3 programs and teams have never won a major recognized National Championship!!! Arkansas claims a Football Writers championship in 1964, Iowa claims the 1958 Football Writers championship, Wisconsin can never claim a championship. These three programs ahead of us are good comparisons of where our program was, is now at and the measure of our collective commitment to being great again consistently. If we measured year in and year out against these 3 teams, it would be telling to see if we can achieve better than them?

Wisconsin is a consistent powerhouse team, but seems to always have some weaknesses in one phase of the game, and does not have the speedy athletes to play with the big boys. However, they have massive fan support, and have no other competition in the state for college football, but the state is similar to Colorado. We are historically 4-1-1 against them. Wisconsin has 15 total division/conference championships. (CU has 32) Their 2018 recruiting class is somewhere around #35-#38 (CU is #41-#45)

Iowa is a consistent, yet mediocre winning team that seems to be happy with 8-4 records. The coach is there forever, and the fans are supportive. They have a very similar situation to us, in that they have another Division 1 team in a relatively small northern state, and thus there are lost opportunities to get better recruits. We are historically 2-0 against them. Iowa has 14 total division/conference championships. (CU has 32) Their 2018 recruiting class is somewhere between #35-#48 (CU is #41-#45)

Finally, Arkansas is the odd ball in all of these rankings, with relative consistency, but no breakout teams as of late. They have enormous support and money, a pretty nice campus and facilities, and yet, they cannot seem to be a major player. The boosters are way to overbearing, but at least they care! Ironically, they play Colorado State the week after we do up in Fort Collins, so we could see some common opponent comparisons. We have never played Arkansas. They have 16 total division/conference championships. (CU has 32) Their 2018 recruiting class is somewhere way up near #70, but with a new coach, this year will be a bit of a downer. Last year, they were around #27.

These three programs will be my benchmarks to compare at the end of the year.

 

[cu62nu36]

Nice analysis with regards to Wisconsin and Iowa. Those are the somewhat valid comparisons. Arkansas is so different geographically, demographically and culturally that it could never be an apples to apples comparison with Colorado. I would throw that out. But Iowa and Wisconsin are definitely what we should be comparing ourselves to.

I will point out though that both have an intrinsic advantage over CU's current situation in that they have zero elite blueblood programs in their division while CU has USC squarely in their path at all times. If you moved Ohio State or Ped State or either Michigan school over to the Iowa/Wisc side of the bracket things would look very different for them. We probably would not be talking about Wisconsin or Iowa as model comparisons.

Our reality is a quite a bit more difficult than either Iowa or Wisconsin's.

 

[SINKRATZ]

The program I'd like to emulate is Michigan State.

They're not the coolest program around, in fact they're probably 4th fiddle in their division, but they're cool enough. They typically recruit between 25-35 with the occasional class going down into the 40's or up into the teens. Even with good recruiting classes they will almost never out-recruit (based on rankings) Ohio State or Michigan in their own division, and they will often rank behind Penn State also. But they still bring in really good players, go to bowl games every year, compete for the conference title most years and win their conference a couple times a decade.

They're not in the national title discussion every year like the true blue blood programs, but they're good enough for top 10 teams when things go right for them and they're a threat to beat the best teams in their conference every year. I think CU can be that type of program.

 

[vinniew_11]

The program I'd like to emulate is Michigan State.

They're not the coolest program around, in fact they're probably 4th fiddle in their division, but they're cool enough. They typically recruit between 25-35 with the occasional class going down into the 40's or up into the teens. Even with good recruiting classes they will almost never out-recruit (based on rankings) Ohio State or Michigan in their own division, and they will often rank behind Penn State also. But they still bring in really good players, go to bowl games every year, compete for the conference title most years and win their conference a couple times a decade.

They're not in the national title discussion every year like the true blue blood programs, but they're good enough for top 10 teams when things go right for them and they're a threat to beat the best teams in their conference every year. I think CU can be that type of program.

Now this is a realistic output for CU. Well thought out.

 

[jizzrag85]

The program I'd like to emulate is Michigan State.

They're not the coolest program around, in fact they're probably 4th fiddle in their division, but they're cool enough. They typically recruit between 25-35 with the occasional class going down into the 40's or up into the teens. Even with good recruiting classes they will almost never out-recruit (based on rankings) Ohio State or Michigan in their own division, and they will often rank behind Penn State also. But they still bring in really good players, go to bowl games every year, compete for the conference title most years and win their conference a couple times a decade.

They're not in the national title discussion every year like the true blue blood programs, but they're good enough for top 10 teams when things go right for them and they're a threat to beat the best teams in their conference every year. I think CU can be that type of program.

Yep, I’d take that. If someone told me we’d win 10 games or more 5 out of the next 8 years and only have 1 losing season out 8 I’d ask where I could sign up. The tides will change as they always do. We’ll never out recruit USC and to a point Oregon has us while they have Nike, they’re our OSU and Michigan. But the time will come where Stanford, Washington and UCLA falter and we’ll be there to take over their rein for awhile.

 

[Buffnik]

I've always thought that the closest comparison to Colorado is Washington. Similar in terms of being in a cool state with similar academic ranks/priorities.

They're a bigger school by about 25% on enrollment when comparing main campuses, with almost all of it being in post-graduates (about 4k more undergrads, but 9k more post-grads). For the entire system, CU actually has about 7k more total students.

They do things better in a lot of ways, and give a blueprint for where CU needs to go. Their system-wide endowment is almost $3 billion compared to CU at a little over $1 billion, which points the way for CU on the importance of driving the post-grad programs and fundraising efforts. Their main campus is actually a little smaller, but they have built it out (786 acres for CU, 703 acres for UW). On sports, our successes are similar in football and basketball but they've achieved a bit more in their history. In non-revenue sports, they have more going on and their other programs are a notch above CU.

Anyway, I look at Washington and say that this is what CU should be. I would even say that although our home recruiting grounds aren't as good as they have, the fact that we're in the middle of the country and can recruit Texas, midwestern metros and even the east coast more easily than they can puts CU in a better position to field great teams. The key to it all, I believe, is driving up the endowment numbers and the overall fundraising efforts. There doesn't seem to be a donor culture at CU like there is at other places. That's why the move to the Pac-12 was such a big deal because that's where so many of the alumni live. It's also why expanding the conference with schools from Texas would have a big impact for CU since that's our #2 state for alums (other than CO).

Here are the Pac-12 endowment ranks:

1. Stanford ($22.398B)
2. USC ($4.609B)
3. Cal ($4.405B)
4. UCLA ($3.530B)
5. Washington ($2.968B)
6. Utah ($1.077B)
7. Colorado ($1.063B)
8. Washington State ($0.908B)
9. Oregon ($0.759B)
10. Arizona ($0.755B)
11. Arizona State ($0.613B)
12. Oregon State ($0.550B)

To give an idea of how well the Texas schools are endowed:

1. Texas A&M ($9.754B)
2. Texas ($3.642B)
3. Texas Christian ($1.514B)
4. SMU ($1.505B)
5. Texas Tech ($1.195B)
6. Houston ($0.716B)

We need those Texas donors to feel attached to CU and motivated to participate in the arms race for athletics and research bragging rights.

Even getting into Oklahoma plays to that with OU $1.520B at and OSU at $0.904B.

I think it's great that RG has been pushing his drive to get the Athletic Department endowment to over $100 million. That should be driven to twice that. And the university as a whole should be making a push for $2 billion. It's very achievable and with better leadership is a very realistic goal.

For the athletics department, it would also be a huge deal to continue increasing the student population. Can CU get it to 45k students on the main campus by building out the South Campus, finishing the East Campus and by re-imagining the acreage used for its family housing on Main Campus (maybe turning that into a university village)? Absolutely.

I believe that CU has incredible potential to be elite.

 

[GoldenSkier]

I've always thought that the closest comparison to Colorado is Washington. Similar in terms of being in a cool state with similar academic ranks/priorities.

They're a bigger school by about 25% on enrollment when comparing main campuses, with almost all of it being in post-graduates (about 4k more undergrads, but 9k more post-grads). For the entire system, CU actually has about 7k more total students.

They do things better in a lot of ways, and give a blueprint for where CU needs to go. Their system-wide endowment is almost $3 billion compared to CU at a little over $1 billion, which points the way for CU on the importance of driving the post-grad programs and fundraising efforts. Their main campus is actually a little smaller, but they have built it out (786 acres for CU, 703 acres for UW). On sports, our successes are similar in football and basketball but they've achieved a bit more in their history. In non-revenue sports, they have more going on and their other programs are a notch above CU.

Anyway, I look at Washington and say that this is what CU should be. I would even say that although our home recruiting grounds aren't as good as they have, the fact that we're in the middle of the country and can recruit Texas, midwestern metros and even the east coast more easily than they can puts CU in a better position to field great teams. The key to it all, I believe, is driving up the endowment numbers and the overall fundraising efforts. There doesn't seem to be a donor culture at CU like there is at other places. That's why the move to the Pac-12 was such a big deal because that's where so many of the alumni live. It's also why expanding the conference with schools from Texas would have a big impact for CU since that's our #2 state for alums (other than CO).

Here are the Pac-12 endowment ranks:

1. Stanford ($22.398B)
2. USC ($4.609B)
3. Cal ($4.405B)
4. UCLA ($3.530B)
5. Washington ($2.968B)
6. Utah ($1.077B)
7. Colorado ($1.063B)
8. Washington State ($0.908B)
9. Oregon ($0.759B)
10. Arizona ($0.755B)
11. Arizona State ($0.613B)
12. Oregon State ($0.550B)

To give an idea of how well the Texas schools are endowed:

1. Texas A&M ($9.754B)
2. Texas ($3.642B)
3. Texas Christian ($1.514B)
4. SMU ($1.505B)
5. Texas Tech ($1.195B)
6. Houston ($0.716B)

We need those Texas donors to feel attached to CU and motivated to participate in the arms race for athletics and research bragging rights.

Even getting into Oklahoma plays to that with OU $1.520B at and OSU at $0.904B.

I think it's great that RG has been pushing his drive to get the Athletic Department endowment to over $100 million. That should be driven to twice that. And the university as a whole should be making a push for $2 billion. It's very achievable and with better leadership is a very realistic goal.

For the athletics department, it would also be a huge deal to continue increasing the student population. Can CU get it to 45k students on the main campus by building out the South Campus, finishing the East Campus and by re-imagining the acreage used for its family housing on Main Campus (maybe turning that into a university village)? Absolutely.

I believe that CU has incredible potential to be elite.

Thanks for taking time to get these figures. Interesting to see where we stand when compared to other schools financially. The family housing on Main Campus is for a lot of graduate students or foreign students. I think our best bet for expansion is East Campus as there are currently relatively large plots of land undeveloped. There is some area around the family housing (if you're talking about the one in goss grove) that could be expanded upon, the areas near 17th street mostly. I never thought of this avenue of growth but I like it.

 

[Not Sure]

I give it a B+. Solid class that brings in some playmakers and adds needed depth. Probably need a little more top end flash to make this an “A” class, though.

As was mentioned earlier, a team of players like what we just signed can win a lot of games.

 

[Buffnik]

Thanks for taking time to get these figures. Interesting to see where we stand when compared to other schools financially. The family housing on Main Campus is for a lot of graduate students or foreign students. I think our best bet for expansion is East Campus as there are currently relatively large plots of land undeveloped. There is some area around the family housing (if you're talking about the one in goss grove) that could be expanded upon, the areas near 17th street mostly. I never thought of this avenue of growth but I like it.

That's why I like the idea of moving soccer and T&F from East Campus to make it part of a university village on Main Campus where family housing currently is. Create a eating & shopping district with condo style housing where the family housing currently is. Then build out more housing on East Campus (including Will Vill and Smiley Court over on 30th Street).

The plan for the South Campus will help with a lot of the growth. It looks like a ton of new university housing will be part of that.

750 apartments, 375 townhomes, 8 academic buildings and 3 recreation fields. LINK1 LINK2

 

[WarBuff]

I've always thought that the closest comparison to Colorado is Washington. Similar in terms of being in a cool state with similar academic ranks/priorities.

They're a bigger school by about 25% on enrollment when comparing main campuses, with almost all of it being in post-graduates (about 4k more undergrads, but 9k more post-grads). For the entire system, CU actually has about 7k more total students.

They do things better in a lot of ways, and give a blueprint for where CU needs to go. Their system-wide endowment is almost $3 billion compared to CU at a little over $1 billion, which points the way for CU on the importance of driving the post-grad programs and fundraising efforts. Their main campus is actually a little smaller, but they have built it out (786 acres for CU, 703 acres for UW). On sports, our successes are similar in football and basketball but they've achieved a bit more in their history. In non-revenue sports, they have more going on and their other programs are a notch above CU.

Anyway, I look at Washington and say that this is what CU should be. I would even say that although our home recruiting grounds aren't as good as they have, the fact that we're in the middle of the country and can recruit Texas, midwestern metros and even the east coast more easily than they can puts CU in a better position to field great teams. The key to it all, I believe, is driving up the endowment numbers and the overall fundraising efforts. There doesn't seem to be a donor culture at CU like there is at other places. That's why the move to the Pac-12 was such a big deal because that's where so many of the alumni live. It's also why expanding the conference with schools from Texas would have a big impact for CU since that's our #2 state for alums (other than CO).

Here are the Pac-12 endowment ranks:

1. Stanford ($22.398B)
2. USC ($4.609B)
3. Cal ($4.405B)
4. UCLA ($3.530B)
5. Washington ($2.968B)
6. Utah ($1.077B)
7. Colorado ($1.063B)
8. Washington State ($0.908B)
9. Oregon ($0.759B)
10. Arizona ($0.755B)
11. Arizona State ($0.613B)
12. Oregon State ($0.550B)

To give an idea of how well the Texas schools are endowed:

1. Texas A&M ($9.754B)
2. Texas ($3.642B)
3. Texas Christian ($1.514B)
4. SMU ($1.505B)
5. Texas Tech ($1.195B)
6. Houston ($0.716B)

We need those Texas donors to feel attached to CU and motivated to participate in the arms race for athletics and research bragging rights.

Even getting into Oklahoma plays to that with OU $1.520B at and OSU at $0.904B.

I think it's great that RG has been pushing his drive to get the Athletic Department endowment to over $100 million. That should be driven to twice that. And the university as a whole should be making a push for $2 billion. It's very achievable and with better leadership is a very realistic goal.

For the athletics department, it would also be a huge deal to continue increasing the student population. Can CU get it to 45k students on the main campus by building out the South Campus, finishing the East Campus and by re-imagining the acreage used for its family housing on Main Campus (maybe turning that into a university village)? Absolutely.

I believe that CU has incredible potential to be elite.

and take over Colorado School of Mines and make it CU-Golden!

 

[Buffnik]

and take over Colorado School of Mines and make it CU-Golden!

Would love to have that as part of the CU system.

 

[WarBuff]

Would love to have that as part of the CU system.

My son was accepted by both Engineering programs. I was a tad torn between having him attend CU or going to Mines. He ended up at CU (as did his sister) so I was happy, but going to Mines would have been a completely acceptable alternative.

 

[cu62nu36]

My son was accepted by both Engineering programs. I was a tad torn between having him attend CU or going to Mines. He ended up at CU (as did his sister) so I was happy, but going to Mines would have been a completely acceptable alternative.

I sent both my boys to Mines. They wanted to get a bit further away from home than Boulder.

 

[dyemeduke]

Would love to have that as part of the CU system.

Why, you usually have decent reasons?

I for one do NOT want CU-Golden at Mines. They're a different breed down there. Our engineering school is just fine as is, and as an engineer, I completely reject the notion that MInes grads are superior than CU-Boulder grads. I've worked with a lot of dumb, arrogant pieces of **** from both schools, but the arrogance/entitlement seems stronger from Mines. The WORST engineers I've worked with are Mines grads. Some of that's sheer numbers and probability, and to be fair, some of the best engineers I've worked with are also Mines grads. They're a fine school, but I do not put them on par as other schools with a primary engineering focus, despite what magazines may say. I don't even consider the average Mines grad to be on par with the average Michigan grad, which is an excellent engineering school.

That's all personal though - not reasonable. Thinking about it objectively though, what benefit would that provide either school? CU has a fine engineering school that offers most degrees. Same with Mines. They both run quite well independently of one another, and it's not like CU needs a presence in Golden. Plenty of Golden kids want nothing to do with Mines.

 

[Buffnik]

Why, you usually have decent reasons?

I for one do NOT want CU-Golden at Mines. They're a different breed down there. Our engineering school is just fine as is, and as an engineer, I completely reject the notion that MInes grads are superior than CU-Boulder grads. I've worked with a lot of dumb, arrogant pieces of **** from both schools, but the arrogance/entitlement seems stronger from Mines. The WORST engineers I've worked with are Mines grads. Some of that's sheer numbers and probability, and to be fair, some of the best engineers I've worked with are also Mines grads. They're a fine school, but I do not put them on par as other schools with a primary engineering focus, despite what magazines may say. I don't even consider the average Mines grad to be on par with the average Michigan grad, which is an excellent engineering school.

That's all personal though - not reasonable. Thinking about it objectively though, what benefit would that provide either school? CU has a fine engineering school that offers most degrees. Same with Mines. They both run quite well independently of one another, and it's not like CU needs a presence in Golden. Plenty of Golden kids want nothing to do with Mines.

It's an excellent school with over a $200M endowment that graduates students who earn high wages. Would be a fantastic addition to the CU system.

 

[dyemeduke]

It's an excellent school with over a $200M endowment that graduates students who earn high wages. Would be a fantastic addition to the CU system.

I have a tendency sometimes to get threads off track, so feel free to delete later if you think appropriate.

I fully admit to not knowing the intricacies of how higher education work - only the general overall basics. So please correct where wrong if you know so. For the moment though, I don't see why Mines' success should be so appealing to the CU system. I would presume that most donations to Mines from their successful alumni would be towards the Golden campus, not CU overall. Sure, over time, donations could be given to the general CU system (I honestly don't know if this is normally done, as I donate specifically to Boulder's Engineering Dept), but the Golden campus would still have their expenses as well. I don't see it as a financial goldmine. I'm not saying you're making that argument, but in case you are...I'm also not saying that I'm right here.

As far in terms of prestige, I also don't think that'll work that well. Success from UCLA doesn't speak incredibly well of UC-Irvine. I know the CA system may be a bad comparable, but that's just a general example that came into my head. UNC-CH and UNC-Wilmginton also consider themselves distinctly - CH does not care about the success of Wilmington grads and vice versa. Since both Boulder and Golden will have strong engineering schools, I think that prestige garnered by faculty and alumni will be attributed to each specific school... ...but this is all conjecture on my part...

Mines does have a few engineering programs that Boulder does not, but it's not that prohibitive. For example, Mines has Petroleum Engineering, and Boulder has Chemical Engineering, which really has shined with bio-engineering as of late. A ChemE though easily can get a job in the oil and gas industry. I don't think Mines offers any school or program that CU needs or would be incredibly more attractive to CU students than what's in Boulder. Boulder DOES however provide all of the other humanities, business, and A&Sci degrees that Golden doesn't have. So, I can see how Mines could benefit from that, but not Boulder..

If you're thinking that from an AD standpoint, the more students, more successful alumni that donate to athletics, etc. Okay, that's fair, but Golden is pretty far away. I don't know though... ...I know a few UC-Denver grads, and they don't seem to care for CU sports except in passing. They definitely don't make donations or go to games.

The two schools are distinct and offer CO kids different experiences in college. I'd strongly prefer to keep them separate, as I don't see what Boulder significantly gains, but am open to your arguments/clarifications.

 

[jizzrag85]

Why, you usually have decent reasons?

I for one do NOT want CU-Golden at Mines. They're a different breed down there. Our engineering school is just fine as is, and as an engineer, I completely reject the notion that MInes grads are superior than CU-Boulder grads. I've worked with a lot of dumb, arrogant pieces of **** from both schools, but the arrogance/entitlement seems stronger from Mines. The WORST engineers I've worked with are Mines grads. Some of that's sheer numbers and probability, and to be fair, some of the best engineers I've worked with are also Mines grads. They're a fine school, but I do not put them on par as other schools with a primary engineering focus, despite what magazines may say. I don't even consider the average Mines grad to be on par with the average Michigan grad, which is an excellent engineering school.

That's all personal though - not reasonable. Thinking about it objectively though, what benefit would that provide either school? CU has a fine engineering school that offers most degrees. Same with Mines. They both run quite well independently of one another, and it's not like CU needs a presence in Golden. Plenty of Golden kids want nothing to do with Mines.

I know and have worked with quite a few engineers from mines and CU and I’ve never thought bad of either, I’ve always found graduates from both were highly educated. I chose CU merely because I absolutely loved CU as a kid and to be completely honest, girls. I don’t think either are vastly better than the other though.

 

[Buffnik]

I have a tendency sometimes to get threads off track, so feel free to delete later if you think appropriate.

I fully admit to not knowing the intricacies of how higher education work - only the general overall basics. So please correct where wrong if you know so. For the moment though, I don't see why Mines' success should be so appealing to the CU system. I would presume that most donations to Mines from their successful alumni would be towards the Golden campus, not CU overall. Sure, over time, donations could be given to the general CU system (I honestly don't know if this is normally done, as I donate specifically to Boulder's Engineering Dept), but the Golden campus would still have their expenses as well. I don't see it as a financial goldmine. I'm not saying you're making that argument, but in case you are...I'm also not saying that I'm right here.

As far in terms of prestige, I also don't think that'll work that well. Success from UCLA doesn't speak incredibly well of UC-Irvine. I know the CA system may be a bad comparable, but that's just a general example that came into my head. UNC-CH and UNC-Wilmginton also consider themselves distinctly - CH does not care about the success of Wilmington grads and vice versa. Since both Boulder and Golden will have strong engineering schools, I think that prestige garnered by faculty and alumni will be attributed to each specific school... ...but this is all conjecture on my part...

Mines does have a few engineering programs that Boulder does not, but it's not that prohibitive. For example, Mines has Petroleum Engineering, and Boulder has Chemical Engineering, which really has shined with bio-engineering as of late. A ChemE though easily can get a job in the oil and gas industry. I don't think Mines offers any school or program that CU needs or would be incredibly more attractive to CU students than what's in Boulder. Boulder DOES however provide all of the other humanities, business, and A&Sci degrees that Golden doesn't have. So, I can see how Mines could benefit from that, but not Boulder..

If you're thinking that from an AD standpoint, the more students, more successful alumni that donate to athletics, etc. Okay, that's fair, but Golden is pretty far away. I don't know though... ...I know a few UC-Denver grads, and they don't seem to care for CU sports except in passing. They definitely don't make donations or go to games.

The two schools are distinct and offer CO kids different experiences in college. I'd strongly prefer to keep them separate, as I don't see what Boulder significantly gains, but am open to your arguments/clarifications.

Getting to the crux of the issue with something else that bothers me: CU-Boulder is the football program for the CU system. It's also the basketball program, etc., that compete at the highest level. CU-Denver, UCCS and CU-Anschultz are all close enough with enough local alums to be marketed to and connected to CU Buffs athletics -- at least football. Mines would also be in that mix. I find it horrible on the part of CU that this isn't done. It's not like the UT system where UTEP, UTSA, etc. play D1 sports.

 

[dyemeduke]

I know and have worked with quite a few engineers from mines and CU and I’ve never thought bad of either, I’ve always found graduates from both were highly educated. I chose CU merely because I absolutely loved CU as a kid and to be completely honest, girls. I don’t think either are vastly better than the other though.

You chose wisely imo. I chose CU bc I wanted a life and didn't want to do engineering... ... ...My point was primarily what your'e saying - both schools are just fine with one not being superior to the other. Magazines and alumni though love to trump up Mines. I've worked with enough bad fruit from Mines to strongly disagree. It's a fine school, but not incredible.

Getting to the crux of the issue with something else that bothers me: CU-Boulder is the football program for the CU system. It's also the basketball program, etc., that compete at the highest level. CU-Denver, UCCS and CU-Anschultz are all close enough with enough local alums to be marketed to and connected to CU Buffs athletics -- at least football. Mines would also be in that mix. I find it horrible on the part of CU that this isn't done. It's not like the UT system where UTEP, UTSA, etc. play D1 sports.

Fair - still have my disagreement on incorporating Mines, but fair. FWIW, UCCS does have their bball program. I know it's not DI, but just fwiw.