I don't follow the round ball, I was just talking about football.
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!
Recruiting talent complaint.
- Thread starter FLounder
- Start date
I don't follow the round ball, I was just talking about football.
Adams is coaching 2 positions, lay off the guy.
Definitely blew up late, but we held off UCLA and others. And he was getting a lot of good offers and recruiting attention before the premium realized they should rate him (despite his success on premier teams on the AAU circuit). He's a guy we would have had no shot at in the '09 class, but were able to land over some pretty elite competition for 2011 despite not having made the NCAA tourney yet.
:lol: can't blame you there, I've tried to get more into the round ball!
It's pretty unlikely that he'd work hard anyway.
His football speed was extremely questionable from what I have heard.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
Long time reader of All Buffs forum and long time Buff fan. First time poster. After reading this entire thread, I had to post. I apologize if I step on some toes. Some of you guys are just expecting WAY too much out of this staff this year in recruiting. "Oh, the staff needs to recruit better . . . " Blah blah blah. Look, I understand we are in the big boy league and we do need to upgrade the talent to compete, but just how do you think you can do that? CU has been miserable in the last 5 years or so. What recruit with a Stanford/UCLA/USC/Oregon offer would decide to come to CU, at this point and time, over any of them? Results are the only thing that can do that. Maybe not the W/L record but lets say CU wins 4 and are in the remainder of the games and play well? That will show results to some recruits.
Mike Mac has a wonderful track record in regards to recruiting. Remember Patrick Willis? Eli Manning? Both guys who credit Mac in recruiting them. Duke Ihenacho said that Mac is a fantastic recruiter and if he had to do it all over again, he would go to him again, no matter who was recruiting him. In fact, he said that is the reason he might make the Broncos this year, Coach Mac. Expect his brother to come here too. Also, Baer is a HUGE name in defensive circles. A lot of people remember his Notre Dame days. Maybe not the recruits, but their dads will know. Jeffcoat? Recruiting in Cowboys territory? That is HUGE down there. Lindgren is making a name for himself and some of the recruits do know that.
And lastly, Mac actually came into a decent opportunity for him in this: this is a very young team. They had, what? 16 fresh/froshmen play significant minutes last year? No other teams do that. The experience they gained is invaluable. That is very similar to what he faced his first year in San Jose. Some of those kids do have some real talent. So with a young team, this gives him a lot of time to put his stamp on the make up of this team instead of having to win over a ton of upper classmen.
Mike Mac has a wonderful track record in regards to recruiting. Remember Patrick Willis? Eli Manning? Both guys who credit Mac in recruiting them. Duke Ihenacho said that Mac is a fantastic recruiter and if he had to do it all over again, he would go to him again, no matter who was recruiting him. In fact, he said that is the reason he might make the Broncos this year, Coach Mac. Expect his brother to come here too. Also, Baer is a HUGE name in defensive circles. A lot of people remember his Notre Dame days. Maybe not the recruits, but their dads will know. Jeffcoat? Recruiting in Cowboys territory? That is HUGE down there. Lindgren is making a name for himself and some of the recruits do know that.
And lastly, Mac actually came into a decent opportunity for him in this: this is a very young team. They had, what? 16 fresh/froshmen play significant minutes last year? No other teams do that. The experience they gained is invaluable. That is very similar to what he faced his first year in San Jose. Some of those kids do have some real talent. So with a young team, this gives him a lot of time to put his stamp on the make up of this team instead of having to win over a ton of upper classmen.
Hyperbole is my speciality.
That was some quality sunshine being pumped for a first post. I'm impressed.
Also, I just don't see why we can't beat out Oregon and USC for recruits. That's all I and the other negative nancys are saying.
Also, I just don't see why we can't beat out Oregon and USC for recruits. That's all I and the other negative nancys are saying.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
Really? No facilities, no memory (in the recruits memories) of CU being good, multiple articles trashing the CU admin and program.........
**** yeah. We totally should be beating out Oregon and USC for recruits.
I love CU football, but man there are some stupid unrealistic cocksuckers around here.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
And of course, have to consider other factors as well. Some CA kid with those offers in hand to in-state schools might not want to leave the state, no matter who/what/where offered. Some kids just don't want to leave home.
Last edited:
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
Why do you people even follow Colorado? You should be Texas fans or Alabama fans or LSU fans.
Idot Buff
Guest
Great thread....would read again.
o_robbie
I don't think before I post
Ultimately we are taking alot of guys who are project-able. What we need is HCMM to build this program up so that we are consistently seeing SR's and JR's play. I think the experience of all those guys can potentially make us a consistent bowl program with 7 or 8 wins per season. At this point I am happy with that.
somebody
Well-Known Member
Welcome!
nocoolnamejim
Well-Known Member
Just a friendly comment. I know that most of the board believes strongly in the importance of recruiting class rankings being a predictive indicator of on-field performance and I agree that there is some correlation, but they aren't necessarily always the be-all, end-all of whether success can be obtained on the field. Other factors like coaching, whether the players play well together cohesively, fit the system they're being recruited into etc. also matter.
Taking an example from your own conference, Washington's class rankings for the last several years according to Scout:
2013: 13, Conference Ranking: 2nd
2012: 23, CR: 5th
2011: 22, CR: 4th
2010: 11, CR: 3rd
2009: 66, CR: 10th
2008: 14, CR: 3rd
2007: 29, CR: 4th
2006: 35, CR: 6th
2005: 55, CR: 10th
2004: 22, CR: 4th
2003: 18, CR, 2nd
2002: 23, CR: 3rd
Median class rank: 25th, Median Pac-12 ranking: 4th
And now win/loss records against FBS opponents during those years:
2012: 6-6
2011: 6-6
2010: 7-6
2009: 5-7
2008: 0-12
2007: 3-9
2006: 5-7
2005: 2-10
2004: 1-11
2003: 6-6
Combined FBS win-loss record: 41-80. Zero conference titles. Zero top-25 end of season rankings.
For all intents and purposes, this team has had the recruiting people in this thread are asking for. Their median recruiting ranking is 25th, which is in the upper-tier of the Pac-12 overall, and they have had pretty dismal results.
Nothing wrong with the desire to recruit better rated players - that's a goal for every team - and with the advantages Colorado has I think they'll get back to doing so sooner or later, but sometimes you just don't really know FOR CERTAIN how good or poor the talent a particular class has until a few years down the road. With a new coaching staff that seems to have won a few players that they were after, there's reason for optimism even if the class rankings aren't what you want them to eventually be immediately.
Good luck and best wishes.
Taking an example from your own conference, Washington's class rankings for the last several years according to Scout:
2013: 13, Conference Ranking: 2nd
2012: 23, CR: 5th
2011: 22, CR: 4th
2010: 11, CR: 3rd
2009: 66, CR: 10th
2008: 14, CR: 3rd
2007: 29, CR: 4th
2006: 35, CR: 6th
2005: 55, CR: 10th
2004: 22, CR: 4th
2003: 18, CR, 2nd
2002: 23, CR: 3rd
Median class rank: 25th, Median Pac-12 ranking: 4th
And now win/loss records against FBS opponents during those years:
2012: 6-6
2011: 6-6
2010: 7-6
2009: 5-7
2008: 0-12
2007: 3-9
2006: 5-7
2005: 2-10
2004: 1-11
2003: 6-6
Combined FBS win-loss record: 41-80. Zero conference titles. Zero top-25 end of season rankings.
For all intents and purposes, this team has had the recruiting people in this thread are asking for. Their median recruiting ranking is 25th, which is in the upper-tier of the Pac-12 overall, and they have had pretty dismal results.
Nothing wrong with the desire to recruit better rated players - that's a goal for every team - and with the advantages Colorado has I think they'll get back to doing so sooner or later, but sometimes you just don't really know FOR CERTAIN how good or poor the talent a particular class has until a few years down the road. With a new coaching staff that seems to have won a few players that they were after, there's reason for optimism even if the class rankings aren't what you want them to eventually be immediately.
Good luck and best wishes.
For a guy who loves Oklahoma, this comment is pretty great.
this is what makes allbuffs the epic place it is. flatulence by keyboard!
The problem with this is that you're looking at the exception to justify subpar recruiting. Of course there are teams that underperform, and of course poor coaching can drag down talented teams, but would a team like Washington have been better off if they had lower ranked recruiting classes? Of course not.
I'd be much more interested in the opposite exception - are there BCS teams out there that regularly recruit in the 50s and 60s, but remain consistently competitive in their conference? Wisconsin is the only program that comes to mind at the moment, though they've had some classes up in the 30s also. Those examples would be more helpful in our current situation IMO.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
The problem really is that simply, the rankings at some point, are useless.
Sure Alabama, and the rest of the blue bloods land 4-5 star classes and those classes turn out to be great. No argument.
But most of those guys are rarely ever available to the next tier down, those of us trying to rebuild. When they are, they are often guys holding Alabama offers, but that is old news. They either are huge character risks, guys who won't qualify, or guys who did wonderful at a camp that Rivals attended, only later to spook the top programs by soft play, or some other fatal flaw. And these are the guys that get everyone excited?
Show me a 4-5 star guy (or a guy who came in with lots of bcs offers) who came to CU since 2001 that wasn't flawed? Ryan Miller is arguable. Kasa came here to play defense, which wasted way too much of his eligibility. He was drafted on promise, not because he was a huge contributor here. But I'll give ya that one. Almost every other guy was a disappointment if not a bust.
Meanwhile, we found guys like Solder who nobody wanted. I think that's tough to build a program on hidden gems, but you got to find them where you can.
How about Awuzie? This guy wasn't good enough for most of the Pac12? Was he a sleeper? No.
Awuzie has an older brother who is at Stanford. Check.
Awuzie is already physically ready to play, no projection on physique needed. Check.
Yet, this kid was a SJSU lean and a lot of people bitched when we offered!
I worry about kids like Center who look good on that film without pads, but is a big risk to ever play. We can't take too many flyers like that.
I don't worry about kids who have camped here and worked with our DL coach, and doesn't have a worthy offer from his in-state schools.
And yes Duff, we are not the only school going to camps, but we are way outworking what the last staff did, which was a big bump up from the staff before that. If we get 20-25 solid football players and couple that with everything else we've talked about, then we need a couple key playmaker guys to add to that recipe to go from 120th to 40th. I'll start watching the ratings more closely when we are really in on guys who really have other options, not just their own claims they make on their own Rivals page.
No one thinks we should be recruiting against the Alabama's of the world, all I'm saying is that if we ever want to rise above the basement of the Pac 12, we need to start being more competitive with our conference peers on the recruiting front and it's not happening yet.
You can argue that rankings are useless, and I know it's an inexact science, but long term the programs that recruit better, win more it's that simple. Since 2009, CUs recruiting classes ranked in the Pac 12 were: 9th, 11th, 12th, 8th, 12th, and is 10th so far this year despite us having more commitments than all but 3 programs. There's a correlation there.
You can argue that rankings are useless, and I know it's an inexact science, but long term the programs that recruit better, win more it's that simple. Since 2009, CUs recruiting classes ranked in the Pac 12 were: 9th, 11th, 12th, 8th, 12th, and is 10th so far this year despite us having more commitments than all but 3 programs. There's a correlation there.
nocoolnamejim
Well-Known Member
Beat me to it. If there are examples of teams that consistently perform worse than their recruiting classes on paper suggest they should, then there has to be examples that show the opposite.
I'm just saying that recruiting rankings have a margin of error factor. For all you know, you could be pulling in a group filled with studs. Don't really know for a few years, so don't give up on them before they've even had a chance. You've had a run of coaches that haven't gotten the job done and therefore are a bit quick on the trigger with the new coaches. But, again, for all you know, they could be superior judges of talent who are pulling in the best players you could realistically get after the last few seasons.
Example:
http://boisestate.scout.com/a.z?s=336&p=9&c=8&yr=2007
Only one four star in the class and eight of those 26 players, or almost one in three, went to the NFL. The four star was an undrafted free agent and now a third stringer. The 2* guys ended up being the biggest studs.
I'm not suggesting, as someone said, "that means our crappy recruiting is perfectly fine." Nor am I suggesting that the team shouldn't continue to raise the bar and aim higher. I'm suggesting that you don't KNOW that it is crappy recruiting yet and to have a little faith and give your new coaches a little bit of time to turn things around. Preemptively declaring the players you are getting "crappy" is pretty disrespectful to those commits. I know I've seen relatives of some of the players you've recruited posting here from time to time in the past. Maybe not the best message to be sending that you have already written some of the players off as failures who aren't going to be able to get it done before they've played a single game?