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!
2018 Pac-12 Recruiting Thread
- Thread starter TDforTD
- Start date
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Here is the reality of this class. It’s good, not very good, certainly not great. MM’s first class averaging 3 starts. That’s an improvement.
But peer reviewed published data show teams of 3 starts win 0.495. That means this is a 5-7 to 7-5 class depending on how they are coached.
So it’s a good class. Nothing more, nothing less.
CU needs better recruiters. And coaches.
Reality.
But peer reviewed published data show teams of 3 starts win 0.495. That means this is a 5-7 to 7-5 class depending on how they are coached.
So it’s a good class. Nothing more, nothing less.
CU needs better recruiters. And coaches.
Reality.
cool.
hawg1
Well-Known Member
Just keeping the sunshine pumpers grounded. You’re not one, are you?
Saying we need better recruiting puts you in the boat with 95% of this board. Congrats.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
I invite you to find a single post on the board that says, “I’m fully content with this level of recruiting forever.” You won’t.
There are a lot of bible thumping, scripture spouters coaching college football but certainly no saints.
Stupid. Freaking stupid. Bloom was an elite punt returner on any team in any era.
What is the opposite of a sunshine pumper because there seem to be more than enough of those on Allbuffs. The ink isn't even dry on the paperwork yet. This class is a good step of an iterative process for which I'm more than happy.
PAHIBuff
It's a big world on Anegada
Disappointing Jim, but I forgive you.....
This was a ****ty post. Not real ****ty, just ****ty.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Can't imagine Tremblay is in play. Hasn't visited in some time and there's been little to no chatter about him.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
I don’t think so either but just covering my bases on anything left this week out of curiosity.
PAHIBuff
It's a big world on Anegada
Not that it matters but some of my other prior football takes were that Purify was likely to be better than Houston, that Dan Hawkins was a fraud, and that CU would ultimately cave and pay off Lisa Simpson. And I was vilified for these opinions. I respect your stuff, but I've been on various CU boards since 1998. Bloom was a jackass and a spoiled opportunist.
And the best kick returner at CU since Ben Kelly?
PAHIBuff
It's a big world on Anegada
To clarify, Bloom was a cool football player but I didn't care for how he cast the endorsement situation as some sort of social justice deal. He just didn't want the rules to apply to him. Water under the bridge; he's gone on to have a successful career in skiing and television.
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
Bloom was a good return guy for practically any team, but I'd stop short of calling him elite for any team. He caught the ball, was fast and quick, and could make a good first cut. He was very good for us. However...on to my next response...
I don't pay too much attention to what everyone writes, but I want to say I often disagree with some of your opinions (still respect you overall). Whatever though - it's a message board. You're getting a lot of flack for your Bloom comments, but I do agree with you on this though. He had a supreme ego on him in college. In his defense, most college aged boys, specifically top college athletes, have a huge ego. However, I think his was a little (or a lot) over the top. I remember GB was quoted as saying how the whole team loved him.... ...no. I'm not claiming I knew the whole team and they all hated him - far from it. But he wasn't some popular, well-loved, likeable guy. Just like a number of us on these boards don't care for Klatt's personality... ...I also can't stand Bloom. I honestly believe that his career is lionized in people's memories for two reasons: 1) He was one of our last good players before we started to nosedive into suckitude. 2) His skiing career and legal fight made him more media friendly.
Yes, I fully think he was a good player... ...but I disagree that he was ELITE. I also have a very tough time considering him a great person for his off-field endeavors. Feel free to disagree everyone....
dyemeduke
Well-Known Member
I think Bloom came up due to Borghi - just to throw it out there...even if it's not likely...I do hope that CU has kept in touch with him. Apparently the Stanford offer has him thinking, and he's not signing this week. There's a long time until February to talk to him. I get that we replaced him with Broussard, but... ...Borghi looks good in a few positions to me.
P12 has a LOT of holes to fill. I wonder how this disparity will affect the conference versus its rivals. It isn't just our blue bloods, it's teams like zona, ASU and Utah. And all for different reasons. Zona had decommits, ASU had no commits, Utah did it on purpose.
I like Max a lot but we got holes and limited scholarships. I'd rather see those limited scholarships go elsewhere than to a 3rd 2018 RB.
It's really interesting how schools treated this period differently than others.
Seems like two schools of thought, with recruiting in general not just as it pertains to the new signing period. But it's the latter that illuminates some philosophical differences (at least IMO).
Schools like Wisconsin, Washington, etc. They know who they want, they accept their commitments and then they are waiting around 95% sealed for signing day. Feels like they don't fool around with kids not willing to get on with a commitment and are playing the field.
USC is always lingering until the end.
Then you got the crumb-catchers (Utah) hoping some guys fall down to them.
Seems like two schools of thought, with recruiting in general not just as it pertains to the new signing period. But it's the latter that illuminates some philosophical differences (at least IMO).
Schools like Wisconsin, Washington, etc. They know who they want, they accept their commitments and then they are waiting around 95% sealed for signing day. Feels like they don't fool around with kids not willing to get on with a commitment and are playing the field.
USC is always lingering until the end.
Then you got the crumb-catchers (Utah) hoping some guys fall down to them.