Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

You can't stop recruiting arguments, you can only hope to contain them

SINKRATZ said:
Urban Meyer wasn't coaching in the BCS at Utah, and Harbaugh turned Stanford into a recruiting power - it most certainly was not a top 10 program. So im still not following. Those guys are pretty top notch recruiters, or are you saying they're not but benefit from being at top 10 programs?
Click to expand...

Yes, Urban Meyer wasn't coaching in the BCS at Utah, but he didn't distinguish himself by pulling in "wow" classes as compared to his MWC breathren. He just didn't.

Harbaugh's classes didn't improve until he started winning. Go look it up. I've posted his classes and his record here before. He improved Stanford by coaching them up. Sure, after they started winning, they really started opening some eyes on the recruiting boards. But not before.

It's all about context here. What I'm saying is that Harbaugh didn't hire "recruiters" - he hired really good football guys. Urban Meyer never distinguished himself as a recruiter until he got to Florida. To say "that's why he's successful" is ludicrous. He was successful at Bowling F'ing Green and Utah without stealing a single recruit from the "Have's".

Teams are built from the ground up. We'd improve quicker with better recruits - I agree.

But nobody has shown me (and I've been asking for several months now) to show me the model program whereby "recruiting above ours place" has worked or made any significant impact. Again, I am sure there's some examples of this, but I cannot find them. What I find is program after program where "football coaching" wins games and THEN attracts recruits.

It really seems that the "good recruiters" are not "good football coaches".... Right Slick?
 
'Tini said:
Or you can look at the results of MacIntyre's late additions, which have been good so far. Here is also a list of schools that were rebuilt using their conference recruiting rankings, star rating, and national ranking. As you see, not all that impressive and are very similar to ours after a full cycle where as we still have ~2 months left.

Minnesota in Jerry Kill's first year: #50 nationally (#9 in the Big 10) - 2.79 star avg.
-Current Win% at School: 0.447 (two bowl games in past two years)
Baylor in Art Briles' first year: #51 nationally (#8 in the Big 12) - 2.45 star avg.
-Current Win% at School: 0.587 (four bowl games in four years after two straight 4-8 seasons)
Iowa State in Paul Rhodes' first year: #74 nationally (#9 in the Big 12) - 2.52 star avg.
-Current Win% at School: 0.429 (three bowl games in five years)
Cincinnati in Brian Kelly's first year: #90 nationally (#6 in the AAC - 2 others tied at #6) - 2.26 star avg.
-Current Win% at School: 0.850 (four bowl games in four years)
Stanford in Jim Harbaugh's first year: #51 nationally (#10 in the Pac 12) - 2.63 star avg.
-Current Win% at School: 0.580 (two bowl games in final two years)
Arizona in Mike Stoops' first year: #49 nationally (#9 in the Pac 12) - 2.38 star avg.
-Current Win% at School: 0451 (three bowl games in final four years)
Colorado in Mike MacIntyre's first year: #60 nationally (#10 in the Pac 12) - 2.53 star avg.
-Current Win% at School: 0.333
Click to expand...

So none of those coaches had a recruiting class that was last in their conference, but nice research.

Mike Stoops? Are you joking? The Mike Stoops that was so successful he got fired after 8 seasons with a losing record? That Mike Stoops?
 
BlackNGold said:
I disagree. Bill McCartney had both. Ben Gregory could do it all...recruit, coach, and relate to the players. You could not be on coach Mac's staff if you could not recruit - Gary Barnett was a good recruiter and a good coach. Les Miles, Ron Vanderlinden, I could go on and on...there are guys that are good at both.
Click to expand...

Bill Mac could not do what he did today, within the NCAA rules. Let's not go there.
Barnett was not a good recruiter. Our recruiting slipped big time under Gary, from the get go.
Les Miles is an awful head coach. He has the benefit of having some good assistants and he's a great recruiter. Read the LSU boards. He drives them crazy.
 
SINKRATZ said:
So none of those coaches had a recruiting class that was last in their conference, but nice research.

Mike Stoops? Are you joking? The Mike Stoops that was so successful he got fired after 8 seasons with a losing record? That Mike Stoops?
Click to expand...

Build me the case of the opposite, as what is above is just the tip of the iceberg.

Show me ONE crap team (not a one year or two year crap program, but a 10 year awful program like Wisconsin or Minnesota, etc) that rebuilt by instantly popping their recruiting rankings up. Show me one team that shocked the world by improving their recruiting in a big way, while near the bottom, and that translated into major improvements down the road a few years.
 
SINKRATZ said:
So none of those coaches had a recruiting class that was last in their conference, but nice research.

Mike Stoops? Are you joking? The Mike Stoops that was so successful he got fired after 8 seasons with a losing record? That Mike Stoops?
Click to expand...
And if you noticed CU isn't last in the conference either. And yes Mike Stoops. While not spectacular by any means he had four 6+ win seasons. Outside of his first two seasons and his last he had a decent record.
 
'Tini said:
And if you noticed CU isn't last in the conference either. And yes Mike Stoops. While not spectacular by any means he had four 6+ win seasons. Outside of his first two seasons and his last he had a decent record.
Click to expand...

41-50? Ok. And they're not last because of numbers at the moment, by average rating we are last.
 
SINKRATZ said:
41-50? Ok. And they're not last because of numbers at the moment, by average rating we are last.
Click to expand...
It's the exact same for every other school I used in my example. Some of the 2* players are gonna receive bumps in the rankings and we could close out with a Shay Fields and a couple of others that will push us up. In three years his record was 7-21, the other five he was 34-29. I don't think Stoops is a good coach but he still won 6-8 games four times during his stint while his first class was less than spectacular. I also think MacIntyre is a better coach which is why I used Stoops as a point to show that a lot of schools rebuilding haven't had what we'd consider good classes and have still had success.
 
Last edited:
buffaholic said:
Build me the case of the opposite, as what is above is just the tip of the iceberg.

Show me ONE crap team (not a one year or two year crap program, but a 10 year awful program like Wisconsin or Minnesota, etc) that rebuilt by instantly popping their recruiting rankings up. Show me one team that shocked the world by improving their recruiting in a big way, while near the bottom, and that translated into major improvements down the road a few years.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm not suggesting we need to be making huge leaps in recruiting immediately - I understand the state of the program and the challenges we face. What bothers me is that with a new coaching staff who is already familiar with our recruiting footprint, and an improved product on the field, we still appear to be bringing in the weakest class in our conference which is a problem when you're already at the bottom of the conference.

If that's the case, the only way we can make up ground on the Pac 12 is for Mac and his staff to out-coach people, develop player better than the other Pac 12 coaches, or be a much better talent evaluator which allows is to consistently find those under-rated players that other teams pass over. I think Mac is probably a very good coach - better than we've had in years, but this conference is ridiculously loaded with very good coaches, so even if he's very good he's going to need to recruit a lot better to improve this team to a point where we can be competitive in conference. JMO.
 
'Tini said:
And if you noticed CU isn't last in the conference either. And yes Mike Stoops. While not spectacular by any means he had four 6+ win seasons. Outside of his first two seasons and his last he had a decent record.
Click to expand...

We will finish last and I will agree that is disappointing. I view ourselves as above WSU and Utah on the crap meter. However, Utah is getting some momentum from 2 highly rated in-state guys and WSU went to a bowl and seems to be higher up the food chain then CU.

Today's recruits don't remember CU going bowling. Hasn't happened since before they were in middle school.

I don't know that hiring some lights out mythical recruiter is going to help that. We have sucked **** for a long time.
 
'Tini said:
It's the exact same for every other school I used in my example. Some of the 2* players are gonna receive bumps in the rankings and we could close out with a Shay Fields and a couple of others that will push us up. In three years his record was 7-21, the other five he was 34-29. I don't think Stoops is a good coach but he still won 6-8 games the majority of his stint while his first class was less than spectacular. I also think MacIntyre is a better coach which is why I used Stoops as a point to show that a lot of schools rebuilding haven't had what we'd consider good classes and have still had success.
Click to expand...

So if you completely ignore his 3 worst seasons, he's a slightly above .500 coach - damn what was Arizona thinking when they fired that guy??
 
Not convinced we'll finish last. Regardless, 8th or 12th.. Meh. What's the difference. Hell, losing Rodriguez to LSU will increase our average stars. If we are not recruiting at an elite level...

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
 
SD Buff said:
Not convinced we'll finish last. Regardless, 8th or 12th.. Meh. What's the difference. Hell, losing Rodriguez to LSU will increase our average stars. If we are not recruiting at an elite level...

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Said many times that the recruiting ratings mean less and less outside the top 10, 25, 40. Outside of that, these analysts have really never seen these kids and there's no sense in comparing Minnesota's class to SJSU class to Utah's class. 90% of those kids are unknowns to the ratings services.

You can safely say these classes are likely not head-to-head with the top 10's and (generally) not head to head with the top 25s. Generally speaking of course.

I guess I'd like to know which recruiting hotshot we should have brought in to recruit at RB, ST, or DB coach. What type of impact would that be having? How do we know our low rated guys aren't going to be ballers?
 
buffaholic said:
Build me the case of the opposite, as what is above is just the tip of the iceberg.

Show me ONE crap team (not a one year or two year crap program, but a 10 year awful program like Wisconsin or Minnesota, etc) that rebuilt by instantly popping their recruiting rankings up. Show me one team that shocked the world by improving their recruiting in a big way, while near the bottom, and that translated into major improvements down the road a few years.
Click to expand...
Illinois under Ron Zook.
 
And I do have to say there is some serious revisionist history on Harbaugh in this thread.
 
Ron Zook's first class: #51 nationally - 2.57 star avg.

Yes it had three 4*'s in it but it also had twelve 2* or lower players.
 
Seriously though, go look through those first few classes for Harbaugh at Stanford. Several of those lowly rated kids had multiple offers. Kinda surprised me actually.
 
Actually CU had the highest assistant salary under Embree in the conference, although those guys had longer resumees. Marshall was the highest paid OL coach and Bieniemy made 480k which was tops in the conf for an OC at the time iirc. So yes we have a history of overpaying... more so with this staff based on their resumees. For an AD that is in such debt, we sure don't seem to care to vastly overpay our coaches. Take 10k off each coach and we're at a 100k right there.
 
Never though I would read anyone complaining how much our assistants are making.

And take into account no multi year contracts (see Tui) and cost of living.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
 
SD Buff said:
Never though I would read anyone complaining how much our assistants are making.

And take into account no multi year contracts (see Tui) and cost of living.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Can you honestly say Neinas, Adams, Clark etc deserve their salaries? Compare them to other conference assistants. And very few assistant coaches receive multi-year deals. This isn't just some meaningless number. This is a lot of money and paying greatly above market rate. Especially for an AD in debt.
 
SD Buff said:
Never though I would read anyone complaining how much our assistants are making.

And take into account no multi year contracts (see Tui) and cost of living.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think it's a good sign too.
 
One. Year. Holy **** can we give them more than less than a year on the job to make definitive statements about their salaries? My god.
 
'Tini said:
One. Year. Holy **** can we give them more than less than a year on the job to make definitive statements about their salaries? My god.
Click to expand...

Well usually in businesses you have to earn your salary. Neinas is probably one of the highest paid ST coaches in the conference if not the nation and he doesn't even coach another position. I saw enough of him vs CSU and he got paid over 20k to almost lose us that game. This also results in a logistical nightmare where we basically have a GA coaching our RB' s.
 
fatbuff said:
He couldnt coach for ****, but Illinois had the opportunity to replace him with a good coach once the talent was upgraded. They missed the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Illinois never got sustainably good under Zook. In fact, I'd say he did more damage than good, all in all.
Maybe if they would have kept him for 2 years and then hired a good coach?
 
Don't know what others are making, didn't click the link. Are we ahead of UCLA? If so, definitely not anymore. Whether you think the staff is over paid, they got promoted and it makes the head coach happy being able to take care of his guys and have the competitive money if he needs to make a hire

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top