Official Arizona Pregame/Game Thread

[Uncle Ken]

Pretty much where I am at. Just enjoying the win.

The systemic issues with CU FB are still there. The OL is still a joke of a sham of a travesty. The D and ST held up their end and it propelled CU to victory.

CU did what a good FB team should do to a lesser opponent...smash them.

B Lewis showed what he is capable of, hopefully it is a confidence booster. I really think he is a good QB.

Yes, Arizona is historically bad, but that is their problem.

Let's see what they can do against Cal. Cal is fundamentally sound team, and better than AZ by a longshot. That isn't saying much, all I can say is GO BUFFS.

He's like a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in a vest.

He's like a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a vest.

The Simpsons (1989) - S08E07 Comedy clip with quote He's like a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a vest. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the...

getyarn.io

 

[leftybuff]

Arizona had one playmaker on defense. Jalen Harris. Maybe some of us have heard of that guy?

No, but I think I might have heard of his brother....

 

[MtnBuff]

Ok, that does sound like coaching. But, I guess my point is that if we cannot pick up a single yard when we need it, how do we expect the offense as a whole to prosper. Sounds like we should start with sacking the OL coach.

It has been suggested...

But look at the bright side.

If we ever have to line up against a blocking sled we have a good chance of being ready.

 

[patebuff]

I don't quite get all the negativity. A game like yesterday was the first (very small) step needed to turn what has felt like a total disaster of a season in to something positive, and I think it's ridiculous to balk at that idea. Dating back to the season opener, many people here have said we wouldn't win another game all year... well we did, and we won it quite handily, with huge plays in all three phases of the game.

Admittedly, I am surprised by how bad Arizona was. It may be a long while before we see worse QB play from an opponent. They appeared to have no playmakers whatsoever. Nevertheless, I expected CU to find a way to lose this game. We felt like the better team for the entire game, but still struggled to find success in the first half. It felt like just a matter of time before Arizona got momentum and won the game by like 14-6 or something.

But that didn't happen. That goal line stand by the d was unexpected and awesome, and after that, plays were made, and breathing room was given to the offense. Lewis stepped up and had a pretty fantastic game. More than anything else, I'm really, really happy for him.

This is not the turning of a corner. It is not a huge victory. But it absolutely is something positive to build from. We have been so deflated since the near-miss at a breakthrough against a&m. We joke and make fun of the coaching staff talking about how young the team is, but...how can a win like this not be a huge thing for a young team? We should be happy about this win. A different narrative for this team has become possible through it. It's again possible to think of this team as one that gives this program something to build from.

This season doesn't have to be a historically bad dumpster fire. If we go back to looking as listless and hopeless, then I'm all aboard the fire Dorrell train. But it's in our best interest for this to start working out. And if it's going to work out, a win like this needed to happen. And it did.

I think everyone had to feel positive about Lewis after Saturday. He most certainly took a step forward, even if it was against a far inferior opponent.

The issue everyone has is this is still the same coaching staff that has ultimately held back this team in all phases of the game (although I think the defense is mostly well coached). Saturday felt good to me because I know what lies ahead. As has been said, Saturday will tell us alot if this team has taken a step forward or not.

 

[GoldStampede]

The issue everyone has is this is still the same coaching staff that has ultimately held back this team in all phases of the game (although I think the defense is mostly well coached). Saturday felt good to me because I know what lies ahead. As has been said, Saturday will tell us alot if this team has taken a step forward or not.

Totally. Our offense in particular looked repressed in all aspects prior to the Arizona game. It's hard not to feel like that's a reflection of Dorrell's personality and demeanor. He comes across as emotionally flat, overly controlled, more worried about doing things methodically than creatively responding to the fluctuating emotions and momentum of a game. I don't think he would ever make a call like the flea flicker play the coaching staff called against the Nubs in 2019.

What's going to make or break Dorrell here, imo, is his willingness to change things that aren't working. I'm a teacher, and it's very easy to imagine someone like Dorrell having a teacherly approach to coaching. I think he's been too worried about making things easily digestible for the team instead of just letting it rip. At some point, you have to loosen the reigns and trust your students not to **** up. If he would have done this against aTm, we would have beaten them. The coaching staff needs to learn from the players, even as the players are learning from them. There have been indications that they are capable of doing this, even after how punishingly bad that four game losing streak was. What we need now is urgency. We'll see if they can bring that to Cal this weekend.

At any rate, the people who are saying this team is as bad as the Embree team from 2012 are totally wrong. This team would beat that team for sure, and probably the first couple Macintyre teams, too. I think they're better than a couple of the Hawk teams as well. Those are certainly not high bars, but this isn't going to be one of the worst seasons in school history. God, we have had some ****ty teams.

 

[Buffnik]

Totally. Our offense in particular looked repressed in all aspects prior to the Arizona game. It's hard not to feel like that's a reflection of Dorrell's personality and demeanor. He comes across as emotionally flat, overly controlled, more worried about doing things methodically than creatively responding to the fluctuating emotions and momentum of a game. I don't think he would ever make a call like the flea flicker play the coaching staff called against the Nubs in 2019.

What's going to make or break Dorrell here, imo, is his willingness to change things that aren't working. I'm a teacher, and it's very easy to imagine someone like Dorrell having a teacherly approach to coaching. I think he's been too worried about making things easily digestible for the team instead of just letting it rip. At some point, you have to loosen the reigns and trust your students not to **** up. If he would have done this against aTm, we would have beaten them. The coaching staff needs to learn from the players, even as the players are learning from them. There have been indications that they are capable of doing this, even after how punishingly bad that four game losing streak was. What we need now is urgency. We'll see if they can bring that to Cal this weekend.

At any rate, the people who are saying this team is as bad as the Embree team from 2012 are totally wrong. This team would beat that team for sure, and probably the first couple Macintyre teams, too. I think they're better than a couple of the Hawk teams as well. Those are certainly not high bars, but this isn't going to be one of the worst seasons in school history. God, we have had some ****ty teams.

Great post.

Dorrell is very much a teacher. He's very concerned about fundamentals and building up from there.

What we want from him is to let athletes be athletes, kids be kids, and just let them go out there, ball out, have fun, be aggressive and let the chips fall where they may... teaching and building them up from that foundation. The concept should be to have them playing fast and loose, unafraid to make mistakes. I think that goes against his nature.

 

[lawdogg]

Great post.

Dorrell is very much a teacher. He's very concerned about fundamentals and building up from there.

What we want from him is to let athletes be athletes, kids be kids, and just let them go out there, ball out, have fun, be aggressive and let the chips fall where they may... teaching and building them up from that foundation. The concept should be to have them playing fast and loose, unafraid to make mistakes. I think that goes against his nature.

What I’d like to think is KD understands the talent/experience level on the roster still isn’t quite where it needs to be at certain key positions. As a result, the margin for error is slim and he’s betting heavily on a conservative approach to try to keep games close where a play or bounce of the ball here or there can steal some wins.

 

[Not Sure]

What I’d like to think is KD understands the talent/experience level on the roster still isn’t quite where it needs to be at certain key positions. As a result, the margin for error is slim and he’s betting heavily on a conservative approach to try to keep games close where a play or bounce of the ball here or there can steal some wins.

That’s the kind of strategy BB2 would employ. With the same results, I might add.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Totally. Our offense in particular looked repressed in all aspects prior to the Arizona game. It's hard not to feel like that's a reflection of Dorrell's personality and demeanor. He comes across as emotionally flat, overly controlled, more worried about doing things methodically than creatively responding to the fluctuating emotions and momentum of a game. I don't think he would ever make a call like the flea flicker play the coaching staff called against the Nubs in 2019.

What's going to make or break Dorrell here, imo, is his willingness to change things that aren't working. I'm a teacher, and it's very easy to imagine someone like Dorrell having a teacherly approach to coaching. I think he's been too worried about making things easily digestible for the team instead of just letting it rip. At some point, you have to loosen the reigns and trust your students not to **** up. If he would have done this against aTm, we would have beaten them. The coaching staff needs to learn from the players, even as the players are learning from them. There have been indications that they are capable of doing this, even after how punishingly bad that four game losing streak was. What we need now is urgency. We'll see if they can bring that to Cal this weekend.

At any rate, the people who are saying this team is as bad as the Embree team from 2012 are totally wrong. This team would beat that team for sure, and probably the first couple Macintyre teams, too. I think they're better than a couple of the Hawk teams as well. Those are certainly not high bars, but this isn't going to be one of the worst seasons in school history. God, we have had some ****ty teams.

Embree’s teams averaged 21.1 and 17.8 ppg in 2011 and 2012 respectively. This team is averaging 17.1 ppg at the half way point. Sure, this defense might be better than either one of those, but those teams were also playing in the Pac 12 for the first time and in those years, the Pac 12 was arguably the fastest, most athletic conference in the country. Those CU teams were slow and unathletic for the Big 12, let alone making the transition to the Pac 12.

Point is, Dorrell’s offense this year is historically bad and to suggest they would for sure beat any of the other bad CU teams is totally wrong. Odds are still against them to win more than 2 games.

 

[GoldStampede]

Embree’s teams averaged 21.1 and 17.8 ppg in 2011 and 2012 respectively. This team is averaging 17.1 ppg at the half way point. Sure, this defense might be better than either one of those, but those teams were also playing in the Pac 12 for the first time and in those years, the Pac 12 was arguably the fastest, most athletic conference in the country. Those CU teams were slow and unathletic for the Big 12, let alone making the transition to the Pac 12.

Point is, Dorrell’s offense this year is historically bad and to suggest they would for sure beat any of the other bad CU teams is totally wrong. Odds are still against them to win more than 2 games.

Say what you will, but those Embree teams so often had their doors blown completely off, and not just by pac teams. Not even the awful performance against Minnesota touches on the level of suck those teams put on display far more often than not. Do you not recall that 2012 squad losing by like 60 points to Fresno? Does it matter if they're scoring *slightly* more points on average than this team if those points are coming in garbage time after getting down by 7 touchdowns in the first half? How about the game VS Sacramento State?? Montana State?? Did they have significantly bigger and faster athletes than Northern Colorado and Arizona this year? Do you really think an Embree squad leads Texas A&M for the majority of a game?

I get that KD was a very underwhelming hire, to put it mildly. But after 12 games, the dude is 6-6. That's the best a CU coach has done in their first 12 games since Barnett. Sure, 2020 was a mirage, but mostly in the sense that our brief national ranking was undeserved and KD's coach of the year accolades were hollow. Those wins still count as wins. I get that our offense has been atrocious, but I just don't think this is the unmitigated disaster people are portraying it to be.

We're going to win four games this year. It will be a mitigated disaster!

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Say what you will, but those Embree teams so often had their doors blown completely off, and not just by pac teams. Not even the awful performance against Minnesota touches on the level of suck those teams put on display far more often than not. Do you not recall that 2012 squad losing by like 60 points to Fresno? Does it matter if they're scoring *slightly* more points on average than this team if those points are coming in garbage time after getting down by 7 touchdowns in the first half? How about the game VS Sacramento State?? Montana State?? Did they have significantly bigger and faster athletes than Northern Colorado and Arizona this year? Do you really think an Embree squad leads Texas A&M for the majority of a game?

I get that KD was a very underwhelming hire, to put it mildly. But after 12 games, the dude is 6-6. That's the best a CU coach has done in their first 12 games since Barnett. I get that our offense has been atrocious, but I just don't think this is the unmitigated disaster people are portraying it to be.

We're going to win four games this year. It will be a mitigated disaster!

We’re debating various levels of awful, so we can just agree that things aren’t great.

Btw, I responded to the Embree part of your initial post because I believe I was the one who mentioned it in a previous post. However, I should have also said I agree with with the rest of what you said. It was a good post, and you’re right, Dorrell will ultimately succeed or fail based on the adjustments he’s willing and able to make both on the field and in recruiting

 

[patebuff]

Embree’s teams averaged 21.1 and 17.8 ppg in 2011 and 2012 respectively. This team is averaging 17.1 ppg at the half way point. Sure, this defense might be better than either one of those, but those teams were also playing in the Pac 12 for the first time and in those years, the Pac 12 was arguably the fastest, most athletic conference in the country. Those CU teams were slow and unathletic for the Big 12, let alone making the transition to the Pac 12.

Point is, Dorrell’s offense this year is historically bad and to suggest they would for sure beat any of the other bad CU teams is totally wrong. Odds are still against them to win more than 2 games.

The 2021 defense would beat the 2011-12 defense ten out of ten times. It's not even close and Nate Landman alone makes that true.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The 2021 defense would beat the 2011-12 defense ten out of ten times. It's not even close and Nate Landman alone makes that true.

I didn’t realize defenses played each other

 

[Buffnik]

The 2021 defense would beat the 2011-12 defense ten out of ten times. It's not even close and Nate Landman alone makes that true.

Yeah. That team was going to need to light up the scoreboard to win. EB had an incredibly bad year as a 1st time OC.

 

[patebuff]

I didn’t realize defenses played each other

They would both still score more points than the 2021 offense!

 

[ahoelsken]

Totally. Our offense in particular looked repressed in all aspects prior to the Arizona game. It's hard not to feel like that's a reflection of Dorrell's personality and demeanor. He comes across as emotionally flat, overly controlled, more worried about doing things methodically than creatively responding to the fluctuating emotions and momentum of a game. I don't think he would ever make a call like the flea flicker play the coaching staff called against the Nubs in 2019.

What's going to make or break Dorrell here, imo, is his willingness to change things that aren't working. I'm a teacher, and it's very easy to imagine someone like Dorrell having a teacherly approach to coaching. I think he's been too worried about making things easily digestible for the team instead of just letting it rip. At some point, you have to loosen the reigns and trust your students not to **** up. If he would have done this against aTm, we would have beaten them. The coaching staff needs to learn from the players, even as the players are learning from them. There have been indications that they are capable of doing this, even after how punishingly bad that four game losing streak was. What we need now is urgency. We'll see if they can bring that to Cal this weekend.

At any rate, the people who are saying this team is as bad as the Embree team from 2012 are totally wrong. This team would beat that team for sure, and probably the first couple Macintyre teams, too. I think they're better than a couple of the Hawk teams as well. Those are certainly not high bars, but this isn't going to be one of the worst seasons in school history. God, we have had some ****ty teams.

Emotionally flat? LOL so I'm the only one who has tried falling asleep to his intro presser? Y'all be slacking.

 

[Buffalo Brad]

Say what you will, but those Embree teams so often had their doors blown completely off, and not just by pac teams. Not even the awful performance against Minnesota touches on the level of suck those teams put on display far more often than not. Do you not recall that 2012 squad losing by like 60 points to Fresno? Does it matter if they're scoring *slightly* more points on average than this team if those points are coming in garbage time after getting down by 7 touchdowns in the first half? How about the game VS Sacramento State?? Montana State?? Did they have significantly bigger and faster athletes than Northern Colorado and Arizona this year? Do you really think an Embree squad leads Texas A&M for the majority of a game?

I get that KD was a very underwhelming hire, to put it mildly. But after 12 games, the dude is 6-6. That's the best a CU coach has done in their first 12 games since Barnett. Sure, 2020 was a mirage, but mostly in the sense that our brief national ranking was undeserved and KD's coach of the year accolades were hollow. Those wins still count as wins. I get that our offense has been atrocious, but I just don't think this is the unmitigated disaster people are portraying it to be.

We're going to win four games this year. It will be a mitigated disaster!

I hope you realize this is the best it will be under KD. He is recruiting at epic lows the likes of which we have not seen here since the last lame duck year of DH. This staff does not get recruiting, does not care about recruiting nor make any effort to even fake like they like to recruit. Their coaching abilities rival those of JE. It is a horrible combination that will take this program 5 plus years to dig out of if this is allowed to continue (which we know it will because the AD and University admin generally do not give a ****). Mitigated or unmitigated, a disaster it will be.

 

[GoldStampede]

I hope you realize this is the best it will be under KD. He is recruiting at epic lows the likes of which we have not seen here since the last lame duck year of DH. This staff does not get recruiting, does not care about recruiting nor make any effort to even fake like they like to recruit. Their coaching abilities rival those of JE. It is a horrible combination that will take this program 5 plus years to dig out of if this is allowed to continue (which we know it will because the AD and University admin generally do not give a ****). Mitigated or unmitigated, a disaster it will be.

Admittedly, I don't pay a ton of attention to recruiting. It just doesn't interest me much, and I've seen too many supposedly great recruits (Darrel Scott, Marcus Houston, Katoa, etc.) pan out to be nothing at all, while guys nobody really talked about end up having great careers. I just feel jaded about the whole thing. I don't know what I'm talking about with it at all, but I also wonder if anyone really does. How are the talents of high school athletes judged and aggregated? How much of it is sites assigning high rankings to the guys big universities with established football programs are already going after, so it just becomes a mostly self fulfilling prophecy? And how you explain situations like Texas and USC, big name programs that always recruit well, but have mostly been mediocre the last ~10 years? I'm worried I sound totally ignorant writing all that, but it's something I've always thought.

Regardless, your post did encourage me to glance at BuffStampede (which, again, not sure if that's a trusted site, because I'm a recruiting ignoramus). Right now, it has the class of 2022 ranked as 44th in the nation and 6th in Pac 12.... Obviously not elite, but, considering that his program has had a single season of national relevance in the last ~15 years, I fail to see how that is so terrible. I find it hard to believe that there are so few talented high school athletes in the country that only ~20 schools or whatever are able to assemble talented teams. There are lots of talented teams that are mediocre or worse because they are poorly coached. Ultimately, I feel like a mid-tier recruiting class should still be capable of a top 25-ish season, and from there, you'd think that consistent winning would lead to more consistent recruiting.

 

[SerenityBuff]

Some people in this thread reeeeeeeaaaaaaally trying to force the positivity. Like re-education camp levels of positivity.

 

[CUAviator]

Admittedly, I don't pay a ton of attention to recruiting. It just doesn't interest me much, and I've seen too many supposedly great recruits (Darrel Scott, Marcus Houston, Katoa, etc.) pan out to be nothing at all, while guys nobody really talked about end up having great careers. I just feel jaded about the whole thing. I don't know what I'm talking about with it at all, but I also wonder if anyone really does. How are the talents of high school athletes judged and aggregated? How much of it is sites assigning high rankings to the guys big universities with established football programs are already going after, so it just becomes a mostly self fulfilling prophecy? And how you explain situations like Texas and USC, big name programs that always recruit well, but have mostly been mediocre the last ~10 years? I'm worried I sound totally ignorant writing all that, but it's something I've always thought.

Regardless, your post did encourage me to glance at BuffStampede (which, again, not sure if that's a trusted site, because I'm a recruiting ignoramus). Right now, it has the class of 2022 ranked as 44th in the nation and 6th in Pac 12.... Obviously not elite, but, considering that his program has had a single season of national relevance in the last ~15 years, I fail to see how that is so terrible. I find it hard to believe that there are so few talented high school athletes in the country that only ~20 schools or whatever are able to assemble talented teams. There are lots of talented teams that are mediocre or worse because they are poorly coached. Ultimately, I feel like a mid-tier recruiting class should still be capable of a top 25-ish season, and from there, you'd think that consistent winning would lead to more consistent recruiting.

In general, I am in the exact same boat as you re recruiting.
But to respond to your USC/Texas comment, while they appear to be falling flat in light of their recruiting, their recruiting alone, despite ****ty coaching is what allowed them to beat us every time we play. Their athletes just outathlete ours. Texas slept walked through the bowl game. USC just throws the ball in the air and their guys always beat our guys.
Only when they come up against someone of similar talent (even just slightly less) is where they falter.

 

[Buffnik]

Admittedly, I don't pay a ton of attention to recruiting. It just doesn't interest me much, and I've seen too many supposedly great recruits (Darrel Scott, Marcus Houston, Katoa, etc.) pan out to be nothing at all, while guys nobody really talked about end up having great careers. I just feel jaded about the whole thing. I don't know what I'm talking about with it at all, but I also wonder if anyone really does. How are the talents of high school athletes judged and aggregated? How much of it is sites assigning high rankings to the guys big universities with established football programs are already going after, so it just becomes a mostly self fulfilling prophecy? And how you explain situations like Texas and USC, big name programs that always recruit well, but have mostly been mediocre the last ~10 years? I'm worried I sound totally ignorant writing all that, but it's something I've always thought.

Regardless, your post did encourage me to glance at BuffStampede (which, again, not sure if that's a trusted site, because I'm a recruiting ignoramus). Right now, it has the class of 2022 ranked as 44th in the nation and 6th in Pac 12.... Obviously not elite, but, considering that his program has had a single season of national relevance in the last ~15 years, I fail to see how that is so terrible. I find it hard to believe that there are so few talented high school athletes in the country that only ~20 schools or whatever are able to assemble talented teams. There are lots of talented teams that are mediocre or worse because they are poorly coached. Ultimately, I feel like a mid-tier recruiting class should still be capable of a top 25-ish season, and from there, you'd think that consistent winning would lead to more consistent recruiting.

What you look at is the average rating of recruits, not the rank. The rank is on total points so it's very skewed this early based on the number of commitments a school has.

iirc, CU was 11th last year and is 11th this year with the teams in 12th being different. So over 2 years, it's been the worst in the Pac-12.

Basically, CU will soon be the least talented team in the conference. Our depth will be horrible, we'll see very few impact freshmen, and we'll continue to see almost no CU players getting drafted. Beyond that, we will lose. The most correlated thing to winning is your recruiting rank over the previous 4 years.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

What you look at is the average rating of recruits, not the rank. The rank is on total points so it's very skewed this early based on the number of commitments a school has.

iirc, CU was 11th last year and is 11th this year with the teams in 12th being different. So over 2 years, it's been the worst in the Pac-12.

Basically, CU will soon be the least talented team in the conference. Our depth will be horrible, we'll see very few impact freshmen, and we'll continue to see almost no CU players getting drafted. Beyond that, we will lose. The most correlated thing to winning is your recruiting rank over the previous 4 years.

Dont worry, I’ve been told by the main beat writers for the program that Dorrell has a great eye for talent and that all the DITR recruits have already shown to be very good in practice.

 

[Bliff Cranch]

iirc, CU was 11th last year and is 11th this year with the teams in 12th being different. So over 2 years, it's been the worst in the Pac-12.

Basically, CU will soon be the least talented team in the conference. Our depth will be horrible, we'll see very few impact freshmen, and we'll continue to see almost no CU players getting drafted. Beyond that, we will lose. The most correlated thing to winning is your recruiting rank over the previous 4 years.

And the transfer portal will be an accelerant. Good programs will be magnets for players wanting something better. Faltering programs will hemorrhage good players and won’t be attractive to replacement talent.

 

[manhattanbuff]

And the transfer portal will be an accelerant. Good programs will be magnets for players wanting something better. Faltering programs will hemorrhage good players and won’t be attractive to replacement talent.

Right. There are portal players who can play. It seems to me that portion of the portal is the minority (60-40 split overrated versus bad fit). The program that recruited them sees that the player isn’t as good as they thought (or their depth), so they’re out. As the more resourced programs improve their scouting to include intel about why portal players wash out, that number will change too.

 

[Da Lama]

Admittedly, I don't pay a ton of attention to recruiting. It just doesn't interest me much, and I've seen too many supposedly great recruits (Darrel Scott, Marcus Houston, Katoa, etc.) pan out to be nothing at all, while guys nobody really talked about end up having great careers. I just feel jaded about the whole thing. I don't know what I'm talking about with it at all, but I also wonder if anyone really does. How are the talents of high school athletes judged and aggregated? How much of it is sites assigning high rankings to the guys big universities with established football programs are already going after, so it just becomes a mostly self fulfilling prophecy? And how you explain situations like Texas and USC, big name programs that always recruit well, but have mostly been mediocre the last ~10 years? I'm worried I sound totally ignorant writing all that, but it's something I've always thought.

Regardless, your post did encourage me to glance at BuffStampede (which, again, not sure if that's a trusted site, because I'm a recruiting ignoramus). Right now, it has the class of 2022 ranked as 44th in the nation and 6th in Pac 12.... Obviously not elite, but, considering that his program has had a single season of national relevance in the last ~15 years, I fail to see how that is so terrible. I find it hard to believe that there are so few talented high school athletes in the country that only ~20 schools or whatever are able to assemble talented teams. There are lots of talented teams that are mediocre or worse because they are poorly coached. Ultimately, I feel like a mid-tier recruiting class should still be capable of a top 25-ish season, and from there, you'd think that consistent winning would lead to more consistent recruiting.

That class is NO WHERE NEAR 44th in quality. I've watched every bit of film I can find on each of our commits and there are maybe 4 decent D1 players in that bunch. And TBH, there are a couple that would struggle mightily to get on the field at the FCS level. Coupled with last year's very sub par class sets a very bleak future no matter how we finish this year.

 

[hokiehead]

What you look at is the average rating of recruits, not the rank. The rank is on total points so it's very skewed this early based on the number of commitments a school has.
...

when you get a chance, could you elaborate on tihs?

exactly how are team recruiting rankings calculated today and what is the alternative formula you're advocating?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

when you get a chance, could you elaborate on tihs?

exactly how are team recruiting rankings calculated today and what is the alternative formula you're advocating?

Currently the rankings on 247 are done by a point system based on the rating of the recruits, but it’s an aggregate point system so it benefits the programs who have the most recruits. In this context, CU might technically rank 44th in the country and 6th in the Pac 12 currently, but that’s entirely because they have 16 commitments, which is good for 3rd in the conference. Basically CU is currently looking OK because it’s quantity > quality right now.

When looking at the average recruit rating, however, CU is 11th in the conference ahead of only Washington State. So while CU has more recruits, they are generally lower rated than the rest

 

[Not Sure]

Currently the rankings on 247 are done by a point system based on the rating of the recruits, but it’s an aggregate point system so it benefits the programs who have the most recruits. In this context, CU might technically rank 44th in the country and 6th in the Pac 12 currently, but that’s entirely because they have 16 commitments, which is good for 3rd in the conference. Basically CU is currently looking OK because it’s quantity > quality right now.

When looking at the average recruit rating, however, CU is 11th in the conference ahead of only Washington State. So while CU has more recruits, they are generally lower rated than the rest

Depth!

 

[MtnBuff]

Right. There are portal players who can play. It seems to me that portion of the portal is the minority (60-40 split overrated versus bad fit). The program that recruited them sees that the player isn’t as good as they thought (or their depth), so they’re out. As the more resourced programs improve their scouting to include intel about why portal players wash out, that number will change too.

The players in the portal who can play will have multiple schools who want them.

Again like high school recruits it is going to come down to recruiting.

Recruiting transfers will be different than high schoolers. These guys will be more focused on their fit and the opportunity to go pro.

Bottom line though is that the schools that will do best in the portal are those that put in the work and sell themselves. Those that make a priority of finding the talent and doing the work needed to close them on committing will be the winners.

What have we seen from this staff that gives any indication that they could get close to putting in the effort and focus needed to beat other schools in he portal?

 

[Bliff Cranch]

The players in the portal who can play will have multiple schools who want them.

Again like high school recruits it is going to come down to recruiting.

Recruiting transfers will be different than high schoolers. These guys will be more focused on their fit and the opportunity to go pro.

Bottom line though is that the schools that will do best in the portal are those that put in the work and sell themselves. Those that make a priority of finding the talent and doing the work needed to close them on committing will be the winners.

What have we seen from this staff that gives any indication that they could get close to putting in the effort and focus needed to beat other schools in he portal?

Exactly.