Would he still be at creek?Sounds like he'll be eligible but will have to sit out a couple of games
This says we offered him:We also do not have an offer out to him
This says we offered him:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/preps/2...high-touted-running-back-nathan-starks/10378/
Got it. I'm going to continue to hope that he transfers to CCHS and finds that he likes it in Colorado. Ol' Ball Coach Logan actually helps his alma mater in recruiting and pumps the Buffs, while Mac has some early success and we recruit him hard.I'm pretty sure it was the Rivals board where I read that Starks no longer has an offer from us.
I'm pretty sure it was the Rivals board where I read that Starks no longer has an offer from us.
+1. I recognize this issue may be as much about HS politics as anything, but based on the information I have read he may just be a kid who made a mistake.Good story, thanks CUFan. I'm with Devlin, let him play.
Now eligible to play for Creek.
watched most of the game vs Cherokee Trail this past weekend. Do not remember seeing Mr starks in the game. I of course could be wrong.
Had great #'s on a team that has lots of great talent. Not to knock the kid, but what has he done lately? saying all that - if he is tough, fast and will run hard, bring him on.
Taking high-risk, high-reward, character-issue type recruits is a good strategy in a town that is proud and protective of its football team.
Is Boulder that type of place?
Taking high-risk, high-reward, character-issue type recruits is a good strategy in a town that is proud and protective of its football team.
Is Boulder that type of place?
Taking high-risk, high-reward, character-issue type recruits is a good strategy in a town that is proud and protective of its football team.
Is Boulder that type of place?