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!

2 scrimmages on Saturday and the Lambs are in trouble

There is still a talent gap. It's not very wide any more, though.
Based on nothing other than recruiting rankings, they're still significantly ahead of us. Checking the 247 rankings for the last four years; Stanford: 17, 24, 19, 10.
CU: 77, 69, 75, 34.

Average class rank over 4 years:
Stanford: 17.5
Colorado: 63.75

Would you care to amend your previous response?
 
Don't get me wrong, though. Lots can happen to make a team play better or worse than it's recruiting rankings would predict. That was obvious with us last year. The top of a class can have a significant impact on its ranking. A few injuries or attitude problems and a top 20 class all of a sudden plays like a class ranked somewhere around 80.
Same thing with lower ranked classes. A few unheralded guys who dragged down a class rank have a growth spurt and next thing you know, they're playing like 5* kids. So I will readily admit that class ranking is not an end all-be all. However, if you're trying to gauge the disparity in talent, it's really the best indicator available, IMO.
 
Based on nothing other than recruiting rankings, they're still significantly ahead of us. Checking the 247 rankings for the last four years; Stanford: 17, 24, 19, 10.
CU: 77, 69, 75, 34.

Average class rank over 4 years:
Stanford: 17.5
Colorado: 63.75

Would you care to amend your previous response?
No. Because if I judged by recruiting rankings I'd think that CU was a terrible team and that Wisconsin has been a bottom feeder in the B1G for the past couple decades.

With Stanford, there's also a big impact on talent from JUCOs. Those guys are ranked lower automatically and Stanford can't take them. This skews things a bit.
 
No. Because if I judged by recruiting rankings I'd think that CU was a terrible team and that Wisconsin has been a bottom feeder in the B1G for the past couple decades.

With Stanford, there's also a big impact on talent from JUCOs. Those guys are ranked lower automatically and Stanford can't take them. This skews things a bit.
Granted. But if you're trying to gauge nothing more than the talent level of a particular team, recruiting rankings are pretty much the only method available. Either class rankings or average stars. Understanding that there are other variables at play that will impact the on-field product, it's not a stretch, or even an exaggeration to point out that Stanford has significantly more talent than we have. We are closer to UW than Stanford.
 
Yes. There is. That doesn't mean we would never beat them. They could have injuries, they could be coming off a short week. They could be looking ahead to their next game. The outcome of a football game is determined by several variables. The most important one is talent, but there are others. Only a total homer would claim we are at the same talent level as Stanford.

I saw a big ass talent disparity at QB. Am I doing this right?
 
Granted. But if you're trying to gauge nothing more than the talent level of a particular team, recruiting rankings are pretty much the only method available. Either class rankings or average stars. Understanding that there are other variables at play that will impact the on-field product, it's not a stretch, or even an exaggeration to point out that Stanford has significantly more talent than we have. We are closer to UW than Stanford.
Or how many guys you're putting in the NFL. Outgoing talent tells more about your recruiting than incoming talent. For instance, you'd evaluate CU's basketball talent last season more on White being a 1st round draft pick than him being a D2 recruit out of high school. CU is evaluating and developing talent as such an outlier to the star rankings that it has made that an almost worthless comparison standard imo. Do we judge Oliver, Lindsay and Montez by what Rivals thought about of them coming out of HS to determine their talent level?
 
There is a striking talent gap between CU and Stanford? I must have missed that last year.

There was/is a striking talent gap between us and USC as well. Last year it happened that we played much better as a team and almost beat them but in the end their talent overcame our advantages.

The talent gap is not as great as it was 3-4 years ago when we could have played USC/Stanford/last years UW/etc. at our very best and still not had a shot against them.

Remember that Appalachian State beat Michigan once as well. Does that mean that their talent was close?

To consistently compete for the PAC 12 title our talent has to take another step up. We are much closer but we still aren't there.
 
Or how many guys you're putting in the NFL. Outgoing talent tells more about your recruiting than incoming talent. For instance, you'd evaluate CU's basketball talent last season more on White being a 1st round draft pick than him being a D2 recruit out of high school. CU is evaluating and developing talent as such an outlier to the star rankings that it has made that an almost worthless comparison standard imo. Do we judge Oliver, Lindsay and Montez by what Rivals thought about of them coming out of HS to determine their talent level?
Judging it based on NFL draftees says nothing about the team on the field right now. I will agree that there are lots of variables and outliers, but the people at 247 (and Rivals, etc) are paid talent evaluators. They do this for a living. I'm not arguing that it's impossible for a team like CU to beat a team like Stanford. I'm just saying that as of right now, there remains a significant talent gap. How that talent performs on the field is a totally different discussion.
 
Or how many guys you're putting in the NFL. Outgoing talent tells more about your recruiting than incoming talent. For instance, you'd evaluate CU's basketball talent last season more on White being a 1st round draft pick than him being a D2 recruit out of high school. CU is evaluating and developing talent as such an outlier to the star rankings that it has made that an almost worthless comparison standard imo. Do we judge Oliver, Lindsay and Montez by what Rivals thought about of them coming out of HS to determine their talent level?

So if/when we lose this year, it will mostly be due to coaching errors.
 
Judging it based on NFL draftees says nothing about the team on the field right now. I will agree that there are lots of variables and outliers, but the people at 247 (and Rivals, etc) are paid talent evaluators. They do this for a living. I'm not arguing that it's impossible for a team like CU to beat a team like Stanford. I'm just saying that as of right now, there remains a significant talent gap. How that talent performs on the field is a totally different discussion.

Also, something to keep in mind. The recruiting services give points for number of recruits as well as what rank they are. I was arguing with my friend, a CSU grad, over the weekend about how similar our recruiting classes have been or not have been, depending on who you ask. Breakdown below (based on 247/scout),

CU:
'14 #78 - 3 Stars x 13 / 2 Stars x 9
'15 #69 - 4 Stars x 1 / 3 Stars x 16 / 2 Stars x 1
'16 #69 - 4 Stars x 1 / 3 Stars x 15 / 2 Stars x 1
CSU:
'14 #86 - 3 Stars x 5 / 2 Stars x 21
'15 #119 - 3 Stars x 6 / 2 Star x 12
'16 #76 - 3 Stars x 16 / 2 Stars x 9
Total:
CU:
4 - 2
3 - 34
2 - 12 (9/12 are from '14)
CSU:
4 - 0
3 - 27
2 - 35

Yes, they are similar in the overall rank, but when you actually look at the numbers we have clearly better recruits. Both the '14/'15 classes were very small compared to CSU's 25+ players.

* Note - I am not jumping into your argument, just pointing this out.
 
So if/when we lose this year, it will mostly be due to coaching errors.
I acknowledged there is a gap. It's narrow now, though. I've always believed there is a lot about CU that builds team cohesion better than most places (they're on an island together in a new place without the distractions of all the friends from the neighborhood), so that's part of why CU will often have better results than its talent would suggest. I also believe that MacIntyre is an excellent coach with great systems and organization. I believe that's an advantage. So if the Buffs aren't in just about every game like started in 2015, winning most and blowing a few out... then, yeah, I'll say that either/both the talent and/or coaching wasn't as good as I thought.
 
Speaking of talent...


As one of several NFL scouts on hand at Colorado's practice watched the workout, a CU staffer told him, "Good to see you guys here again on a regular basis."

The scout turned, grinned and said, "Y'all are back in business. We've got to be here."
 
Speaking of talent...


As one of several NFL scouts on hand at Colorado's practice watched the workout, a CU staffer told him, "Good to see you guys here again on a regular basis."

The scout turned, grinned and said, "Y'all are back in business. We've got to be here."


"And thank god" the scout continued, "I would have slit my wrists if I had to go back to Lincoln again"
 
Way more than most coaches MM and his staff know how to develop players and look for diamonds in the rough to develop. I think that gives us a 30 to 40 place advantage in the final recruiting ranking.

Question has always been: can that approach make us a consistent top 10 team.
 
Way more than most coaches MM and his staff know how to develop players and look for diamonds in the rough to develop. I think that gives us a 30 to 40 place advantage in the final recruiting ranking.

Question has always been: can that approach make us a consistent top 10 team.

If your hypothesis is correct, and I think everyone has a hint where I land on that question, then the answer is yes. With time.

I believe we are landing more of our key targets each year. Losing 3 key staff members set it back a little, but undoubtedly HCMM feels this class is above what constitutes the current two deep average, given the right amount of development

And as wins grow, that ability to win battles accelerates.

Wisconsin and Michigan State show that. But you have to have a really good system, front to back. We seem to have it. The disparity in average recruiting rankings vs what we see on the field with our eyeballs is the final word.

I will sit back and enjoy now. And yes, we need a good recruiter added to this staff because we could be doing more.
 
Way more than most coaches MM and his staff know how to develop players and look for diamonds in the rough to develop. I think that gives us a 30 to 40 place advantage in the final recruiting ranking.

Question has always been: can that approach make us a consistent top 10 team.
I don't believe it is a 30-40 place advantage. There's a Top 10 (give or take, depending on year) with recruiting ranks that are in an elite echelon. Programs recruiting there are going to have a talent advantage on us unless we get into that same echelon. But after that level, better evaluations and development can put the Buffs right there with the best of the rest. I think that's where we are getting and have a Top 30ish roster (give or take).

So, no, I don't believe where we are can deliver a consistent Top 10 team. I believe where we are can deliver a consistent Top 35 team which hopefully has more seasons than not in the Top 25 and a run into the Top 10 every so often.
 
Put it another way: these programs that have had runs of winning 9+ games a year over long periods while consistently bringing in Top 10 classes (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Florida State, Oklahoma currently or programs like Florida, Miami, USC, Texas in the recent past)... as good as we may think they are... they're better.
 
Put it another way: these programs that have had runs of winning 9+ games a year over long periods while consistently bringing in Top 10 classes (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Florida State, Oklahoma currently or programs like Florida, Miami, USC, Texas in the recent past)... as good as we may think they are... they're better.

More directly, the talent those teams have in their defensive front sevens is several levels up.
 
20-31. That's MacIntyre's record at CU. It kinda sucks.

Getting past suck means sustaining better than .500 record for a few years and not being picked 4th in the Pac-12 south.

None of this takes away from recognizing the Rise and Mac doing miracles to climb out of that deep, deep hole.
 
20-31. That's MacIntyre's record at CU. It kinda sucks.

Getting past suck means sustaining better than .500 record for a few years and not being picked 4th in the Pac-12 south.

None of this takes away from recognizing the Rise and Mac doing miracles to climb out of that deep, deep hole.
If HCMM can climb to a .500 or better Pac-12 career record within 4 seasons, the program's in good shape. Within 3 and we're really humming. And if he does it in 2, we should build a statue.
 
How satisfied are people with the recruiting of the different positions over the past couple cycles? Mine would be:

Very: OL, WR, DB
Meh: RB, QB, LB
Smfh: DL, TE
I tend to agree. I would be tempted to move QB up to "Very" if we're talking about this cycle and last. I think Lytle and Stenstrom both have very good potential to be solid or better P5 QBs.
 
I tend to agree. I would be tempted to move QB up to "Very" if we're talking about this cycle and last. I think Lytle and Stenstrom both have very good potential to be solid or better P5 QBs.
Yeah, the only reason I didn't have QB in the Very category was due to Montez and Noyer being less heralded as recruits and Stenstrom being an unknown right now. Obviously, Montez is more than likely going to prove the rankings wrong this year and turn into a solid player, and Noyer seems to be developing nicely as well. If Stenstrom has a big year and ends up being what we all hope, QB could easily be the most well recruited position on the team, next to WR.
 
Keep winning and get on tv more, we'll start winning some of these recruiting battles. It's really that simple to me, CU has everything else.
 
I don't believe it is a 30-40 place advantage. There's a Top 10 (give or take, depending on year) with recruiting ranks that are in an elite echelon. Programs recruiting there are going to have a talent advantage on us unless we get into that same echelon. But after that level, better evaluations and development can put the Buffs right there with the best of the rest. I think that's where we are getting and have a Top 30ish roster (give or take).

So, no, I don't believe where we are can deliver a consistent Top 10 team. I believe where we are can deliver a consistent Top 35 team which hopefully has more seasons than not in the Top 25 and a run into the Top 10 every so often.

I don't think there is too much difference between what you and I are saying. What if recruiting rank is a kind of futures market? The final recruiting rank (especially if it is a rolling average over four years) is the predicted future rank of a team in 3-4 years, based on projected talent alone. Our final ranking in 2016 was in the top 20, but our four year average recruiting rank from 2012-2015 was like in the 60's or something. That is about a 40 spot bump due to both good player development and the under-pricing of the talent we found.

There are a lot of folks who claim that recruiting rank is the best indicator of future success. Probably true with most teams. CU is on the good extreme of this group in way overachieving our past recruiting ranks. The Alabamas, Ohio States, Stanfords pretty much confirm the rule. They get top talent and know how to develop that talent...by doing everything well. The opposite extreme is UCLA. Mora is buying overpriced talent and then running a 'do everything to cater to your stars and their parents' culture so that he can attract more overpriced talent. They get a -30 bump.
 
I don't think there is too much difference between what you and I are saying. What if recruiting rank is a kind of futures market? The final recruiting rank (especially if it is a rolling average over four years) is the predicted future rank of a team in 3-4 years, based on projected talent alone. Our final ranking in 2016 was in the top 20, but our four year average recruiting rank from 2012-2015 was like in the 60's or something. That is about a 40 spot bump due to both good player development and the under-pricing of the talent we found.

There are a lot of folks who claim that recruiting rank is the best indicator of future success. Probably true with most teams. CU is on the good extreme of this group in way overachieving our past recruiting ranks. The Alabamas, Ohio States, Stanfords pretty much confirm the rule. They get top talent and know how to develop that talent...by doing everything well. The opposite extreme is UCLA. Mora is buying overpriced talent and then running a 'do everything to cater to your stars and their parents' culture so that he can attract more overpriced talent. They get a -30 bump.
Short pork bellies!
 
Keep winning and get on tv more, we'll start winning some of these recruiting battles. It's really that simple to me, CU has everything else.
Well, except for big time money (to keep a top notch staff, but ya keep winning and that can be partially solved.
 
Back
Top