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!

2020 Recruiting rankings

Where does CU finish in 2020 recruiting rankings

  • Total voters
    127
I could care less what you guys are talking about on the last few posts, but we are a shoe-in for the top 35. I've done my do diligence on this
 
Buffnik said:
A few of the regional or national guys have recently posted on the 247 Buffs board that it's likely that we have some recruits who are going to be getting a ratings upgrade. That would help.
Click to expand...
Well, Clayton's gone from .93 to .91.
 
Here's the explanation for how Rivals.com calculates team ranks (top 20 prospects in the class, points earned for Rivals Rating on each player, bonus points earned for positional rank of the player): https://n.rivals.com/news/rivals-com-football-team-recruiting-rankings-formula

ESPN is not nearly as straightforward with its Team Rankings, since they incorporate a "human element" where their people shade things based on how well they think the recruiting class addressed team needs -- so it's not straight math: https://www.espn.com/college-sports..._/id/8900833/how-determine-our-class-rankings

Here's how the 247sports Composite is calculated (proprietary algorithm that averages 247, Rivals and ESPN to rate and rank players) -- the Composite is what is used to determine the Team Rankings on 247: https://247sports.com/Article/247Sports-Rating-Explanation-81574/

Here's the link to the tool on 247sports where you can see Colorado's current points and how it changes if you add or subtract any recruits: https://247sports.com/college/colorado/Season/2020-Football/Commits/Preview/
 
This has been mentioned on here repeatedly...the class "ranking" systems from these websites stupidly take into account the number of commits a school has. CU's ranking is inflated because we have more commits then most other schools. If you just look at quality rather then quantity...the average composite score of CU commits is 85.25 which ranks #51 in the country. The poll in this thread doesn't even go beyond 50. Recruiting has improved under the new staff but this class is still pretty mediocre and is not as good as most people seem to believe.
 
J-R-K said:
This has been mentioned on here repeatedly...the class "ranking" systems from these websites stupidly take into account the number of commits a school has. CU's ranking is inflated because we have more commits then most other schools. If you just look at quality rather then quantity...the average composite score of CU commits is 85.25 which ranks #51 in the country. The poll in this thread doesn't even go beyond 50. Recruiting has improved under the new staff but this class is still pretty mediocre and is not as good as most people seem to believe.
Click to expand...

Actually there was another option for more than 50, it’s called “other”.
You make fair points, but if we sign everyone committed right now, it’s still a lot better class than what we have signed in a long time.
It’s a class filled with guys with multiple P5 offers instead of classes filled with guys with G5 offers that we have been accustomed to lately. Make no
mistake, this is a pretty solid class towards turning the corner and building the foundation of it all holds up till signing days. There are national recruiting pundits talking about us as well.
 
Last edited:
J-R-K said:
This has been mentioned on here repeatedly...the class "ranking" systems from these websites stupidly take into account the number of commits a school has. CU's ranking is inflated because we have more commits then most other schools. If you just look at quality rather then quantity...the average composite score of CU commits is 85.25 which ranks #51 in the country. The poll in this thread doesn't even go beyond 50. Recruiting has improved under the new staff but this class is still pretty mediocre and is not as good as most people seem to believe.
Click to expand...

Well that isn’t true at all as there’s 6 teams in the top 50 with a lower average which means we would be at 44 but I digress. I’ve been saying this for sometime though that I look more at the average class rankings and what’s the floor of the class, the lowest guys you’re signing. This happens every year though, there were years in the past few where our average was better than multiple teams ranked “ahead” of us too.

With that said this is the highest average we’ve posted since 2008 and that’s actually kind of impressive because as you noted, we have a full 25 this cycle and if this was a smaller class the average would probably be higher. So I disagree this class is as good as everyone thinks, it’s a solid class and one of the best we’ve seen in over 10 years. The ranking is just for people to argue about, it doesn’t mean anything to anyone but us.

oh and we are in on guys to make the class even better so there’s that.
 
Last edited:
If going by average on a year-by-year basis, should really only go by the top 20 recruits for the comparison.

And quantity does matter. Citing the example I saw from Rivals, everyone in his right mind would take a class with 10 4* players and 10 3* players as a better class than one with 10 4* players and no other signees. Average rating is not everything and may not even be a worthwhile measure. Quantity matters.
 
I’d say quality at positions of need is the most important indicator of a recruiting class and recruiting sites don’t evaluate that.
 
Buffnik said:
If going by average on a year-by-year basis, should really only go by the top 20 recruits for the comparison.

And quantity does matter. Citing the example I saw from Rivals, everyone in his right mind would take a class with 10 4* players and 10 3* players as a better class than one with 10 4* players and no other signees. Average rating is not everything and may not even be a worthwhile measure. Quantity matters.
Click to expand...
IMO the rating services do a good but not great job evaluating. While difficult to sell for ratings services, the best standard I’ve seen here in determining the quality of recruiting is examining the number of P5 offers. In demand people are generally better. There are exceptions for sure, but they remain the exception and never the rule.
 
Buffnik said:
If going by average on a year-by-year basis, should really only go by the top 20 recruits for the comparison.

And quantity does matter. Citing the example I saw from Rivals, everyone in his right mind would take a class with 10 4* players and 10 3* players as a better class than one with 10 4* players and no other signees. Average rating is not everything and may not even be a worthwhile measure. Quantity matters.
Click to expand...
We should only sign our highest rated recruit to maximize our average.
 
manhattanbuf said:
IMO the rating services do a good but not great job evaluating. While difficult to sell for ratings services, the best standard I’ve seen here in determining the quality of recruiting is examining the number of P5 offers. In demand people are generally better. There are exceptions for sure, but they remain the exception and never the rule.
Click to expand...
Which is why it has resonated so much with me that Tucker cares so much about star ratings and offer lists. I felt he wasn’t true to that with some of the early recruiting this cycle, but I’ve seen things evolve in a very positive way lately.
 
Buffnik said:
Which is why it has resonated so much with me that Tucker cares so much about star ratings and offer lists. I felt he wasn’t true to that with some of the early recruiting this cycle, but I’ve seen things evolve in a very positive way lately.
Click to expand...
Wait! Haven’t our previous 3 coaches told us stars don’t matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top