Duke is 4-0... what Cutcliffe has done is miraculous

[Buffnik]

Good points. The converse can be true as well...rebuilding in the PAC12 would be more difficult because of the level of competition. That's my only question mark with Mac...can he repeat what did at other schools in the PAC12. I think he can (he had SJSU competitive with Stanford), but time will tell.

That's what I meant. My last paragraph was really wonky in the way it was written. What I meant was that after the Top 2 teams in the ACC, you've got a field of teams that a solid, well-coached team can surpass. In the Pac-12, we've got quarterbacks, speed and talent from the top down to the bottom. It's harder in the Pac-12. Our conference is much more like the SEC (which Duff is very familiar with and I'm sure influences his analysis). In the SEC, you see programs like Ole Miss and Tennessee regularly recruit Top 30 classes and it's barely enough for them to be mediocre. That's where we now find ourselves in the Pac-12. Everyone's so good that you need everything that's happening with Cutcliffe's rebuild AND you need the horses where young backups are future NFL players.

 

[DrunkRalphie]

I'm confused why posters continually post that yes we should be recruiting better then follow it up with "but, but, but."

I'm confused by posters that think recruiting is fixed like waiving a magic wand. After a decade of ****ty football, losing records and piss poor facilities who on earth would anyone want to play here? I wouldn't if I was top recruit if I'm being totally objective. I don't care how good the salesman is, until very recently there was absolutely nothing to sell about the program.

 

[Quattro]

I'm confused by posters that think recruiting is fixed like waiving a magic wand. After a decade of ****ty football, losing records and piss poor facilities who on earth would anyone want to play here? I wouldn't if I was top recruit if I'm being totally objective. I don't care how good the salesman is, until very recently there was absolutely nothing to sell about the program.

Hey we agree! :lol:

 

[slider]

I'm confused by posters that think recruiting is fixed like waiving a magic wand. After a decade of ****ty football, losing records and piss poor facilities who on earth would anyone want to play here? I wouldn't if I was top recruit if I'm being totally objective. I don't care how good the salesman is, until very recently there was absolutely nothing to sell about the program.

:rolling_eyes:

 

[Buffnik]

For the record, I'm laying out some concerns and a POV that isn't 100% what I think.

I'm actually happy with the rebuild at this point. Not satisfied since there were some recruiting battles we lost but needed to win and I expected a larger bump this year... but overall I'm happy.

What I believe is:

A. The team needs to show progress as a "team on the rise" over these last 8 games.
B. MacIntyre needs to close this class with some difference-makers while holding onto some key recruits like Fehoko and Montez.
C. Next year's veteran team needs to win and recruiting for the 2016 class needs to not just continue incremental improvement. It needs to be a leap forward.

 

[slider]

2014 class at this time was actually better (somewhat respectable with Dotson, Rodriguez, and Waz in the fold at this time). Fast forward to this Spring with brand new facilities (huge excuse for years prior):

2015 class is actually worse. 3 of 11 (not counting Blandin) have BCS offers. 2 of 11 have Pac offers. How did recruiting get worse?

 

[Bufffan68]

I'm confused by posters that think recruiting is fixed like waiving a magic wand. After a decade of ****ty football, losing records and piss poor facilities who on earth would anyone want to play here? I wouldn't if I was top recruit if I'm being totally objective. I don't care how good the salesman is, until very recently there was absolutely nothing to sell about the program.

Agree. I also don't see how the recruiting is that horrible. This staff brought in Gillam, Fields, McCartney, Lindsay...all players really contributing in their first or second years. All things considered, I'm not disappointed in the recruiting.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Haven't read the entire thread - but it should be noted that Cutcliffe went 4-8 his 1st season at Duke, 5-7 his 2nd season at Duke, 3-9 in his 3rd season at Duke, and 3-9 again in his 4th season at Duke, and finally 6-7 in his 5th season at Duke.

His first year with a winning record came in his 6th​ season.

 

[FLounder]

2014 class at this time was actually better (somewhat respectable with Dotson, Rodriguez, and Waz in the fold at this time). Fast forward to this Spring with brand new facilities (huge excuse for years prior):

2015 class is actually worse. 3 of 11 (not counting Blandin) have BCS offers. 2 of 11 have Pac offers. How did recruiting get worse?

Quoted for future bump when most of this class has offers from other BCS school in January and February.

 

[Quattro]

Haven't read the entire thread - but it should be noted that Cutcliffe went 4-8 his 1st season at Duke, 5-7 his 2nd season at Duke, 3-9 in his 3rd season at Duke, and 3-9 again in his 4th season at Duke, and finally 6-7 in his 5th season at Duke.

His first year with a winning record came in his 6th​ season.

Thanks, no one has said that

 

[slider]

Quoted for future bump when most of this class has offers from other BCS school in January and February.

Thanks I will look forward to it considering Jase Franke was the only player from the last class to land BCS offers AFTER he committed. Unless you want to count Waz, Dotson, and Rodriguez... who we didn't even land anyway

 

[buffaholic]

Recruiting is simple.
1. Most (not all, but most) quality recruits choose to stay relatively close to home.
2. Most (not all, but most) quality recruits choose to play for a winning team.

It takes a special coach to break through and be the catalyst to overcome #1 and #2. There aren't many of them. CU has to start winning with less than optimal recruits (no easy task), and then once you have momentum you need a coach with the right stuff to sell and close the deal. Once the ball is rolling it's not as hard. But it's extremely difficult to get the ball rolling.

Are there any that didn't get fired or banned by the NCAA? Serious question as it pertains to rebuilding projects. Not Saban taking over Alabama. But I mean doormat level programs.

Cutliffe didn't.
Harbaugh didn't.
Sarkisian didn't.

Lots of guys have recruited beyond their records, but they all have been fired rather quickly. Right Slick?

I keep asking this question and it's ignored, yet it's accepted fact evidently that this is how you rebuild a program - thru sexy recruiting... Show me the evidence.

 

[BlackNGold]

Are there any that didn't get fired or banned by the NCAA? Serious question as it pertains to rebuilding projects. Not Saban taking over Alabama. But I mean doormat level programs.

Cutliffe didn't.
Harbaugh didn't.
Sarkisian didn't.

Lots of guys have recruited beyond their records, but they all have been fired rather quickly. Right Slick?

I keep asking this question and it's ignored, yet it's accepted fact evidently that this is how you rebuild a program - thru sexy recruiting... Show me the evidence.

Baylor, Vanderbilt, are a couple of recent examples. You don't have to be in the top 25 in recruiting but you need to start moving up...being in the bottom of the conference each year is not going to get it done.

You question is not ignored, but you seem to want to ignore the answers.

 

[skibum]

One place where we have an advantage over historic dumpster fire programs (Duke, KjSU, **** Baylor, etc) is that because of our history, we will get more consistently positive press if/when we actually turn the corner and get to a bowl game. The tone of the media conversation will be different for CU than it was for them.

There's a world of difference between "is KjSU real? Despite 100 years of losing" leads, and "Colorado is back. After the worst decade in school history, Colorado is back to its winning ways."

Having history is advantageous (even if you're not ND); the flow and tone of positive press mentions for CU will be different than it was for those schools, and it will make for a shorter road to the top because recruits will notice when the ESPN talking heads talk about the "miracle" Cutcliffe has wrought in Duke, vs "and Colorado is back, wtf took so long?" One of those schools position as a winner is unusual, whereas the other ones position as a loser is unusual.


The hardest part is getting the ball rolling, but once it's going, make no mistake, or will easier for CU to re-crack the top 25, than it was for **** Baylor get through a couple years ago.

If the foundation is right (and man do I hope MM knows what he's doing), I think a lot of people will be surprised at quickly recruiting starts clicking once the ship is turned. Can MM get us to that first taste of success with his current strategy is the biggest question though.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Are there any that didn't get fired or banned by the NCAA? Serious question as it pertains to rebuilding projects. Not Saban taking over Alabama. But I mean doormat level programs.

Cutliffe didn't.
Harbaugh didn't.
Sarkisian didn't.

Lots of guys have recruited beyond their records, but they all have been fired rather quickly. Right Slick?

I keep asking this question and it's ignored, yet it's accepted fact evidently that this is how you rebuild a program - thru sexy recruiting... Show me the evidence.

Would you agree that, assuming we aren't following the Art Briles/Harbaugh mold by recruiting a once in a generation talent at QB, we might be on the Duke model.. which won't be good enough to allow Mac to continue coaching here beyond year 4 or so? I get that we're bad, but if, in years 3 and 4, Mac notches some more 3 win seasons, he's done?

 

[Colorado Track Fan]

Are there any that didn't get fired or banned by the NCAA? Serious question as it pertains to rebuilding projects. Not Saban taking over Alabama. But I mean doormat level programs.

Cutliffe didn't.
Harbaugh didn't.
Sarkisian didn't.

Lots of guys have recruited beyond their records, but they all have been fired rather quickly. Right Slick?

I keep asking this question and it's ignored, yet it's accepted fact evidently that this is how you rebuild a program - thru sexy recruiting... Show me the evidence.

There is an extremely high correlation between wins/high rankings and average star ratings for your starting 22 for the 120 teams (or so) in d1 college football. You can always point to exceptions, but the best teams generally have the most sought after recruits and the bottom 20 teams generally have the lowest rated recruits. It's a measurable fact. It's a measurable fact that there are exceptions, but it's also a measurable fact that if you take the the teams that are consistently in the top 10 year after year you will find that those same teams generally have high recruiting rankings.

If you're starting from the bottom it's the chicken and the egg situation. Quality recruits don't want to come to a losing program, but it's hard to win without quality recruits. That's why I say that it takes someone special to win (in a p5 conference...I'm not talking Boise State) with less than stellar recruits and then close the deal with the quality recruits once you have some momentum going. You have to have some legit quality recruits to compete at the next level--the top-10 level, the conference championship level, the major bowl winner level.

Focus on the norms, the majority, not the exceptions.

 

[Colorado Track Fan]

Would you agree that, assuming we aren't following the Art Briles/Harbaugh mold by recruiting a once in a generation talent at QB, we might be on the Duke model.. which won't be good enough to allow Mac to continue coaching here beyond year 4 or so? I get that we're bad, but if, in years 3 and 4, Mac notches some more 3 win seasons, he's done?

Let's be clear that Stanford's team has lots of 4 star talent. Stanford has consistently been recruiting in the top 20 and top 10 for a while now. Their 2012 class had 3 five star and 9 four star guys. That's the definition of "sexy" recruiting.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Let's be clear that Stanford's team has lots of 4 star talent. Stanford has consistently been recruiting in the top 20 and top 10 for a while now. Their 2012 class had 3 five star and 9 four star guys. That's the definition of "sexy" recruiting.

Nobody is talking about 2012 Stanford recruiting. Buffaholic is talking about the first couple years under Harbaugh. Their recruiting was largely similar level to his predecessor's.