Realistic Analysis of Class

I expect some on here are more dialed in and have more experience with player evaluation than most of us on this board (and certainly more than I have). While I understand that recruiting is an uncertain science at best, it does seem that better recruiting classes tend to produce more successful and talented teams. I did a brief look at the Missouri class compared to our class on rivals. They are #32 (and it looks to me at the fringe of the second demarcation line - maybe too artificial but line 1 around 12/15 and line 2 at about 30/33ish) and we are #44. They have fourteen players rated 5.6 or above and we have seven. They have one player rated 5.4 and we have five. They are 170 points ahead of us (GA is 1,500 ahead, nice). Maybe this has already been discussed on the coke and hookers page, but if anyone is willing to share their insight here I'd love to hear it.

My question is did we get good talent here, or are we shading the truth to fit our own narrative? On its face it looks like Missouri is a clear step above in the talent they just brought in. I feel like we are a bit short here, and there may be some fallout in say 2020 is several of the long shot type guys (basically the 5.4 guys) don't pan out. Another couple 5.7 or 5.8 guys added to what we got would make me feel confident we have a top 25 class, regardless of what the rankings say. Answering my own question I think the two keys each year are having some high end guys at the top, and having volume. Our 2015 and 2016 classes of 18 signees each I think did a lot of damage in 2017 and 2018. This year every top 10 rated class has 24-27 signees.

 

Well, first, we must answer the question of "do stars matter"? I haven't seen this discussed on here, so who wants to go first?

 

Lots of factors for your questions. First this is a transition class. Tucker did not have much time to recruit this class. If you look at how the first year coaches finished in recruiting. We finished Behind Ohio State and Miami. And ahead of WV, GT, Maryland, Kansas, KSU, TTech and a few others. Really solid effort if you look at it in that context.

Going forward I am hoping this is the floor for how we rank in recruiting. Seems like this staff puts more effort into recruiting and we should expect better results.

 

Spot on!

 

Yeah i know that is a tired subject. I don't think we need to have the top 10 type classes with 4 or 5 5* players and 10-12 4* players included. To me that is overkill. But I also think that back to back classes of under 20 is never a good idea. Not bodies for the sake of bodies, but adding the 22-25 guys each year is critical to maintaining a constant drive to be great. I'm not a fan a USC, but when they were at their last peak it was about a ton of talent, and all of it competing to get on the field. No one had a spot reserved for them, and there were UA all americans coming in behind starters every year.

I just hope the comment in the presser about "we don't care about stars" doesn't mean we can't land 4* players. I suppose the thing that was/is difficult for me to understand is who to trust on player eval when you are looking at the difference between 5.7, 5.6 and 5.5 guys. Do we need to be in the group that has 15 5.7 players? Again, I hope is it much ado about nothing, and we get consistently in, or closer to, a top 20 ranking with each recruiting class. The hovering in the 40's seems to leave little room for error on the field.

 

I too hope this is the floor. I wonder if MT will run a play up or play out type of program where you get your year or two to work into the depth chart, and if it doesn't happen you transfer out. Seems that (along with guys playing 2 or 3 years then going to the NFL) is how the haves of the college football world keep adding full classes each year.

 

Filled a lot of gaps and shifted the roster breakdown toward linemen and linebackers.

Doesn't feel like there are many sure thing type prospects -- either in a good way or in a "why did we sign a mediocre 3* with little upside" way. It's a mix of guys who need to perform up to their rankings (for some, the highest rankings they had during the cycle before being downgraded) and guys who need to significantly outperform their rankings because they look the part but were very lightly rated & recruited.

If I was the coach, I'd definitely fall back on the old coach axiom with this class and give it a "C" grade because I hadn't gotten to coach any of them yet and wouldn't really know what I had.

 

My feeling is that we should’ve gotten Devera and Cam Ron. I’m gonna give the class a B with the belief (hope) that HCMT is as good of a recruiter as advertised and that next year we are in the top 20.
We are off to a great start with Lee.

 

we passe on Cam Ron.

 

I think we passed on a couple good OLs at the end because we found an OT we liked and needed that a lot more than another OG.

 

I think it was mutual disinterest after the OV.

 

We had a bigger need for an OT, Nikko looks like a high ceiling guy. But recruiting is always less than a sure thing. If we had to choose between Nikko and Cam Ron, I take Nikko every time.

As for the TE from NJ, guy just seemed like a weird fit. I'm all for recruiting the full country, but these white dudes from NJ that want to come to Boulder just seem so awkward.

Get some balls to our Auburn TE grad transfer, and you got a chance this year to go high on both TE and QB recruiting.

 

FWIW, this class would have ranked as the second best of the MacIntyre era in terms of class ranking, average stars, and P12 ranking. When MM left, it was a lower rated class. Transition classes are always weird- hard to tell how this one will shake out.

 

No, they are close but slightly worse now. The composite average on 247 was a little over .85 when MM left, where now it's just barely under at .8499.

 

The class rounded out well. So refreshing to see the commitment to OL and DL in recruiting again. The trenches is where CU has been beaten consistently and I would expect this investment to continue.

Similar composite score to where MM had the class, but swapped some DBs for DL which makes it an upgrade IMO.

 

Doesn’t matter how our recruits are rated. Coach T and his staff will coach ‘em up! WOOT!

 

This class has about as many P5 offers as the classes of 2011 to 2016 combined.

There was a time not long ago where only maybe 4 or 5 of our signees had significant P5 offers, now we only have about 5 who didn't.

 

We need to stop using that era as a reference mark. We weren't one of the worst P5 teams, we were one of the worst FBS teams in that period.

 

I actually changed that to reflect all the way to 2016.

Alls I'm sayin is we have a coach and staff in their first year already landing a better class than most of what we had the previous decade. So that's reason for optimism and not this bitching I keep reading about on here.

 

Fair point. It is worth remembering that in the eyes of recruits, we are the 6th worst P5 team over the past 5 years.

 

I do plenty of bitching... but this is rich.

People have been "optimistic" for years about CU recruiting. MM was still being defended at this time last year for his recruiting... by many of the same people who now claim he was terrible.

 

The shift of focus to the lines are super encouraging. Tucker’s idea of always be recruiting will pay dividends, real quick. I’m highly impressed and encouraged.

 

I think this class is about as good as it could have been given the circumstances. Had Evans stayed, the class probably finishes somewhere in the high 30’s. One guy can make a big difference. Overall, it’s ok. Not great, but expecting greatness in a transition class is unrealistic.

 

I know this is Kong bread for this but Coach Mel is really going to prove his recruiting worth in next year‘s class by seeing which quarterback we end up signing. Thats going to be so huge. Im super excited about hcmt and i love what hes doing. And he will have a great opportunity to sell to 2020 QB. I have a feeling we are going to sign a blue chip guy at that position

 

A positive article from the DP (for a change) on this recruiting class. (SIAP)

 

This morning I simply looked at the height / weight columns of the class and was impressed. From a first glimpse, superficial evaluation, it is satisfying to simply look at the size of this class.

What a great transition class for a new head coach. I love it! A+

 

I don't recall a lot of people jumping for joy that we went from 35th ranked in 2017 to 52nd in 2018...

I for one will always try to find optimism until it isn't possible anymore. How else could I still be here all this time? Last years recruiting class was a disappointment for a 5th year coach, but the 7 loss collapse was the deal breaker.

 

Finding optimism is wonderful, but it comes off as disingenuous when mild criticism (which for the most part it has been thus far with Tucker) is somehow considered really negative or unfair.

 

The current recruiting (for the past 15+ years) is a far cry from the early and mid 90's level of recruiting. On a national level, CU has work to do. However, considering HCMT had less than 2 months to recruit over half of the class, CU is in good position. He has a vision and that vision is bigger lineman (accomplished), stronger (more than doubled the time frame for the players to work out in the off season - accomplished), faster (signed the fastest guy in the country and some exceptional athletes at CB, LB and WR - accomplished). I would say this class is a success. Time to coach them up!