What's new
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!

Site Rankings of 2017 Class

Here is what is funny about your post - both Rivals and Scout had Miller as a 4 star recruit. People can always cherry pick data but Miller was a highly regarded recruit.

lol condescension at its finest. I checked one website but you go ahead and pat yourself on the back smart guy.
 
I'm loving where we are headed with recruiting and as a program in general. I was lucky enough to be at CU for two national championship appearances. Ironically, I don't long to do that again and be today's Alabama. There just seems to be too much other junk you need to accept to get to that level.

When we were down, I was just hoping we get get back to the success of say, Wisconsin or someone similar. Consistent 8-9 win seasons and every few years, we make a little run at it and win 10+ games. And we do it the right way and stay out of the scandal tabloids.

I think we are on our way.
 
To put this a different way, think of the way we sometimes rate how attractive someone is.

"The Star System... from a different point of view"

A "10" is like a 5*. Not too many of them out there. And there's not gonna be a lot of disagreement.

A 4* is like someone we'd give an "8" or "9". A bit more agreement here than with those we rate lower, too. Some people may think a "9" is a "10" and some may think an "8" is more of a "7". Regardless, it's still not representing a big percentage of the population and we mostly agree that they're all really attractive.

Now, a 3*... that's a lot of people. Everyone we'd rate a "7" (which, as we covered, some will think is an "8") all the way down to a "4" (which some will see as a "3" or not think is even worth bothering to rate). There's a world of difference between a "7" and a "4". To Duff's point -- telling me a "4" and a "7" is the same or pretending to in order to fit your argument is total bull****.

When we get to 2*, we're talking the range from a "1" to a "3" and we really don't want to spend much time splitting those hairs. So we're going to miss some here that might just need to get a new haircut, some skin cream and a diet & exercise plan to transform into a "7" or "8" within a couple years of putting that work in.

Last, we have the 0* which are simply unrated and would be a "0" or "TBD" on our attractiveness scale. We haven't seen them ourselves, know that there's some interest in them, but we haven't gotten enough 2nd hand reports from people whose opinions we trust to make us throw out a 2* (1-3) or 3* (4-7) rating for completeness sake of our attractiveness database.

:D
Don't the "0's" walk on at, like, Albertus Magnus or Gustavas Adolphus or something?
 
Last night ESPN showed CU as 25 on one list and 27 on another. Not a huge surprise from ESPN.
 
Back
Top