You should probably go tell the coaches that.
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!
Future of Florida recruiting & CU footprint
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
I'm sure they know it. I'm not dropping any groundbreaking news here. The discussion seemed to be regarding whether we should continue recruiting Vegas.You should probably go tell the coaches that.
It's a discussion board. We discuss things. It's what the board was designed for.
But, smiley face!!!
For this cycle, the state of Nevada had about 8-10 P5 prospects. Of those, we seemed to be putting our time and resources into 3-4 of them and we lost out on those guys to the likes of Ohio State, SC and UCLA. While disappointing, I don't understand why that means we should abandon the the state, which really only includes Desert Pines and BG. The 4 kids we were heavily pursuing at one point or another were all either 4* or 5* players at probably the most highly visible and most prominent programs in the country. Slightly different situation than Rakestraw, Huntley, Julmisse, etc from GA and FL.
One of CU's largest alumni bases is in Illinois. And I have noticed that Wyoming is recruiting that state very well at their level. Just like they've been appealing to MAC-level guys who want to leave the footprint, CU could probably do well with B1G/Notre Dame level guys who want to leave the footprint from Illinois.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
I can tell you that Chiaverini feels the main emphasis should be TX, CA and CO.
He believes you should look everywhere and show interest in everyone talented enough to join your team. But your leg work should be in the first 3 states.
The time spent in Hawaii and FL is expensive and has yielded very limited results the last decade.
I agree on getting your face in the top programs in Las Vegas and Arizona since that is the footprint the Buffs are in.
I love getting talent from Florida and think hiring a guy with south ties is a good idea (Duke's DB coach comes to mind) but it shouldn't be an emphasis.
He believes you should look everywhere and show interest in everyone talented enough to join your team. But your leg work should be in the first 3 states.
The time spent in Hawaii and FL is expensive and has yielded very limited results the last decade.
I agree on getting your face in the top programs in Las Vegas and Arizona since that is the footprint the Buffs are in.
I love getting talent from Florida and think hiring a guy with south ties is a good idea (Duke's DB coach comes to mind) but it shouldn't be an emphasis.
delabuffs
Well-Known Member
The gap between CA and FL/TX in recruiting rankings which runs counter to NFL data consistently (most recent draft classes continue to show CA on top as well) is exhibit A to the bias against CA that have developed in recruiting rankings esp rivals and espn. There are many more under appreciated kids in CA.
I personally love the renewed focus on the core- CA, TX, CO. There are still holes in CA and TX that we can cover better- the most notable is Houston. Put me in the camp that wants renewed focus on Poly recruiting- that covers islands, all over CA, UT, occasionally PAC NW.
Agree that AZ and LV are important but likely an offshoot to having the right guys in CA. Same goes for NOLA/Houston recruiting.
Any other recruiting areas IMO should be dependent on which legacy relationships an assistant brings. For instance as long as Tumpkin is on staff time spent in MI and Miami is time well spent- talent rich areas where Joe has great relationships.
Just a question so don't get all bent. Do you know what chev thinks or is it what you think? I agree where the footprint should be.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
His actions speak louder than words. He has focused on CA and TX from day one. Rarely deviating.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
LOL. That is what was said when I sat down with him. Those are the primary focus areas. Of course they will look elsewhere but I sensed he didn't think they spent well in 2016 recruiting getting only 2 players from Florida. Now, he liked those two players ability, but CU put a lot of time and effort they could have put elsewhere.
Cool, thanks for the response.
Glad to hear this.
CU is likely to get 75% or more of every recruiting class from CA-TX-CO. That's our core foundation and CU football is good when all three are going well in recruiting.
Based on that, I've always wondered why we don't put 4 people in CA and 4 in TX with 1 dedicated to coordinating CO for the 5-15 recruits we'd look at in-state each year.
Then, balance things out with people also picking up a satellite territory out of AZ, HI, NV, UT, WA, OR, OK/ KS and LA -- also someone put in charge of JUCO recruiting.
Last edited:
somebody
Well-Known Member
Two out of three Rivals 5* pro-style QBs are from Georgia this year. (Their ranking page is different from their individual pages, and the order isn't even the same.)
I don't mind hitting up the Southeast some but majority should be the other states mentioned.