Also, simply suggesting CU shouldn’t have “pretty girls” as employees of the recruiting operation or hosts insinuates that sex is the only function they bring, which is obviously really ****ing stupid.
You just said that the vast majority of P5 programs are not doing recruiting operations any dirtier than CU, and I’m just wondering which programs that are consistently winning (8-10 wins/year) that fall in this category.Define consistent. If you want a legitimate annual conference championship contender, we are miles away in resources.
You just said that the vast majority of P5 programs are not doing recruiting operations any dirtier than CU, and I’m just wondering which programs that are consistently winning (8-10 wins/year) that fall in this category.
The female recruiting assistants are really just an example of more *ahem* aggressive recruiting strategies that have seemingly been dismantled since Tucker left. Maybe that’s an oversimplification, but we have somehow turned guys like Chev, Michaelowski, and Martin into below average recruiters which to me speaks to larger problems within our recruiting operation as a whole.I think recruiting operations need to be overhauled as well.
My overall point: people have taken the vague insinuations surrounding Mel Tucker and female recruiting assistants and turned it into this idea that now CU wants to be especially squeaky clean. In reality, the actual substance is probably somewhere in the middle.
More money for assistants, more quality control coaches, a younger director of player personnel/recruiting coordinator. These are tangible moves that need to be made.
A project for another time, but how about 8-9 games/year, which is realistically what I think CU can strive for.How many teams are consistently winning 10 games a year?
The female recruiting assistants are really just an example of more *ahem* aggressive recruiting strategies that have seemingly been dismantled since Tucker left. Maybe that’s an oversimplification, but we have somehow turned guys like Chev, Michaelowski, and Martin into below average recruiters which to me speaks to larger problems within our recruiting operation as a whole.
A project for another time, but how about 8-9 games/year, which is realistically what I think CU can strive for.
Is it overplayed though? Maybe it’s a Dorrell thing more than an institutional thing given the bball program seems to have figured out how to walk the line.Sure, but the "we definitely can't cheat anymore" angle still seems overplayed and actually overshadows legitimate changes which can/should be made this offseason.
Is it overplayed though? Maybe it’s a Dorrell thing more than an institutional thing given the bball program seems to have figured out how to walk the line.
End of the day recruiting needs to improve in a big way and I’m not seeing any evidence that anything is being done to improve it.
But he decided he’d rather wait for a better job than take this one. Why? Why did Butch Jones turn us down? Why did Tucker leave after 1 year? Money, sure but seems like there are institutional problems with this program that make it a bad job. I’m sure it’s a combination of resources for staff and resources for a recruiting operation, but I believe it’s also administration level commitment to doing what is needed to actually field a winner.I mean, they nearly hired Sark before it fell through.
Might be a fool’s errand, but I think there are some people who think running a clean program does not have to be mutually exclusive with competing for championships.But he decided he’d rather wait for a better job than take this one. Why? Why did Butch Jones turn us down? Why did Tucker leave after 1 year? Money, sure but seems like there are institutional problems with this program that make it a bad job. I’m sure it’s a combination of resources for staff and resources for a recruiting operation, but I believe it’s also administration level commitment to doing what is needed to actually field a winner.
I’ve said this before, but if we have decided we want to run a clean program and recruit high character players, that’s fine but don’t sell us the idea that we want to compete for championships.
But he decided he’d rather wait for a better job than take this one. Why? Why did Butch Jones turn us down? Why did Tucker leave after 1 year? Money, sure but seems like there are institutional problems with this program that make it a bad job. I’m sure it’s a combination of resources for staff and resources for a recruiting operation, but I believe it’s also administration level commitment to doing what is needed to actually field a winner.
I’ve said this before, but if we have decided we want to run a clean program and recruit high character players, that’s fine but don’t sell us the idea that we want to compete for championships.
Each of those programs have at least two of the following, though, whether it’s money, rich recruiting grounds, or more lax academic standards, none of which CU has.Schools like Iowa, Missouri, NC State, Okie Lite, Utah fit that description.
Does Iowa have lax academic standards? Really did not know that.Each of those programs have at least two of the following, though, whether it’s money, rich recruiting grounds, or more lax academic standards, none of which CU has.
I just think it’s foolish to think CU can ever be more than they currently are without getting closer to the line.
Each of those programs have at least two of the following, though, whether it’s money, rich recruiting grounds, or more lax academic standards, none of which CU has.
I just think it’s foolish to think CU can ever be more than they currently are without getting closer to the line.
Is it? I’m not saying CU is suffering from Michigan, Notre Dame or Stanford standards, but there have been multiple legit P5 recruits over the last couple years who have been denied.The lax academic standards line is way overblown.
Well either we are doing something very wrong at an institutional level or we are one of the unluckiest programs in the country over the last 15 years.Not saying CU is a "good job," but that if you weigh all the factors, there may not be that many in the P5. There is a large group of jobs which really are not wholly different in challenges when comparing them.
I actually don’t know, but they have money and, for the style of football they play, they have some good recruiting grounds (Wisconsin is similar).Does Iowa have lax academic standards? Really did not know that.
Ah, didn’t know Iowa was a monied school, and didn’t view their recruiting grounds as being fertile, so figured you must have been referencing them in terms of academics. Learned something today.I actually don’t know, but they have money and, for the style of football they play, they have some good recruiting grounds (Wisconsin is similar).
Yeah not only do we need to increase the salary pool but we need coaches with Texas ties for recruiting and in order to be competitive we need to over pay because it costs so much more to live here than it does in Texas and Oklahoma.And simply saying CU just needs to get better assistants and not toe the line is great, but to get assistants who will markedly improve recruiting, that requires a whole lot more money than CU has shown it’s willing to pay.
So again, in order to run a relatively clean program at CU AND consistently win, they either need a lot more money, or they need to be willing to dive into the grey area.
Well I say money because of the BIG affiliation. All Pac 12 programs not named Oregon, USC, UCLA and Washington are at a money disadvantage to even the worst programs in SEC/BIG. I will admit that Iowa and Wisconsin are somewhat exceptions to the rule to some of this because they have philosophies and styles that don’t pit them against the country’s elite programs for recruitsAh, didn’t know Iowa was a monied school, and didn’t view their recruiting grounds as being fertile, so figured you must have been referencing them in terms of academics. Learned something today.
Stanford has plenty of money. Utah also has good support and pays well. Arizona state just charges the **** out of their huge student body to make up for it lolWell I say money because of the BIG affiliation. All Pac 12 programs not named Oregon, USC, UCLA and Washington are at a money disadvantage to even the worst programs in SEC/BIG. I will admit that Iowa and Wisconsin are somewhat exceptions to the rule to some of this because they have philosophies and styles that don’t pit them against the country’s elite programs for recruits
Yeah I just put Stanford in it’s own group with like Notre Dame. They have a ton to offer that CU doesn’t that helps make up for any limitationsStanford has plenty of money. Utah also has good support and pays well. Arizona state just charges the **** out of their huge student body to make up for it lol
Well either we are doing something very wrong at an institutional level or we are one of the unluckiest programs in the country over the last 15 years.
Is it? I’m not saying CU is suffering from Michigan, Notre Dame or Stanford standards, but there have been multiple legit P5 recruits over the last couple years who have been denied.
And simply saying CU just needs to get better assistants and not toe the line is great, but to get assistants who will markedly improve recruiting, that requires a whole lot more money than CU has shown it’s willing to pay.
So again, in order to run a relatively clean program at CU AND consistently win, they either need a lot more money, or they need to be willing to dive into the grey area.
That’s not background noise for this program right now, though. Replacing 3 marginal players with 3 good ones each year is a big deal for CU.You are talking 3ish recruits a year. It is background noise.