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!

As of Early Signing Period - 2018 Class Grade

What grade would you give the 2018 recruiting class?

  • A

    Votes: 2 1.3%

  • A-

    Votes: 5 3.1%

  • B+

    Votes: 42 26.3%

  • B

    Votes: 59 36.9%

  • B-

    Votes: 33 20.6%

  • C+

    Votes: 11 6.9%

  • C

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • C-

    Votes: 4 2.5%

  • D

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • F

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Total voters
    160
BuffinCali said:
All of this is subjective. There was a chart someone put together that identified Rivals and 247 rankings as well as P5 offers. My response to that is, someone is calling the glass half full. What about players Stars/rankings? There are no 4 stars and definitely no 5 stars in this recruiting class. If you look at UCLA's class, it has seven 4 star players. UCLA also has 10 players in the ESPN top 105 ranked players. I would say that is a very good class. CU has no players in the ESPN top 300 and zero players with 4 or 5 stars. So while this is all subjective depending on the data you pull, I would bet Rick George is not okay with trailblazing to find over 100M in funds for the new facilities, only to have the coach pull an average class nationally, no players in the top 300 and zero 4 and 5 star players. I am not saying ESPN is the ultimate source, they are not, but there is not a recruiting service out there that thinks CU's class is anything more than marginal nationally.
Click to expand...
How many 4 and 5 star players did CU bring in again?
 
Maybe I shouldn't, but I'm grading them on a curve. I'm not holding them to the same standards as Alabama, that doesn't make sense... but if we're grading recruiting within the limitations of this program, I think this class is exceeding expectations. It's gotta be a B+ or A- right?
 
Looking at Rivals there are 26 5* recruits and only one recruit committed in the Pac and that is to USC. The entire conference is falling further behind the SEC
 
BuffinCali said:
All of this is subjective. There was a chart someone put together that identified Rivals and 247 rankings as well as P5 offers. My response to that is, someone is calling the glass half full. What about players Stars/rankings? There are no 4 stars and definitely no 5 stars in this recruiting class. If you look at UCLA's class, it has seven 4 star players. UCLA also has 10 players in the ESPN top 105 ranked players. I would say that is a very good class. CU has no players in the ESPN top 300 and zero players with 4 or 5 stars. So while this is all subjective depending on the data you pull, I would bet Rick George is not okay with trailblazing to find over 100M in funds for the new facilities, only to have the coach pull an average class nationally, no players in the top 300 and zero 4 and 5 star players. I am not saying ESPN is the ultimate source, they are not, but there is not a recruiting service out there that thinks CU's class is anything more than marginal nationally.
Click to expand...

My point was you cannot look at a chart and say, “oh, WSU is 6th in the pac and CU is 7th, we suck.”

I know UCLA’s class is insanely good, i was showing how ridiculous it is to look at a chart and say, “well colorado is ahead of UCLA in team rankings so despite UCLA’s commits and 92 average, were better.” It isn’t that simple.

These classes are REALLY CLOSE in average though. There are not large discrepancies between the schools. I can agree with the top 300 thing but ESPN also says we have 4- 4 stars so if you want to use ESPN you can’t say that they haven’t given us any 4 stars in their rankings.

I won’t sit here and pretend I’m smarter than anyone else, there are people here that study this stuff. I won’t tell anyone they’re wrong for having their opinion, I can respect that. I just think using arbitrary charts based off subjective opinions that fluctuate by site is a bad way to just assume one way or the other. So is thinking 4/5 athletes are the answer to all of our problems. UCLA has the chip Kelly effect and USC is USC and Washington has been REALLY good going on 2 years now.

I can’t make fancy charts to portray my opinion to prove my point like some others. But if you go and you look at averages, were an 85, which is not bad, despite your “marginal” claim. We have no 2 stars, we have no kids ranked in the 70’s and we have kids ranked highly at some of their positions, #1 OLB in JC.

Everyone keeps bringing up USC, UCLA, Washington and the top 25 and you’re just glossing over reality. There are SIXTEEN 5-Star athletes in the top 100 team rankings. Some I’m certain have announcements later today/February. 16. There are 16 and you’re up in arms we couldn’t land one of them? Well neither did 90 other schools...5 stars are like unicorns or model worthy wives who cook, clean, have a great education and aren’t high maintenance.

West Virginia has 4 4-Stars on rivals and their average is the same as ours. Baylor has 3 and their average is the same as ours as well.

Oklahoma State, Kentucky, WSU, Indiana, Arizona, Missouri, cincy, TT, GT, Boston College all have 4 stars and lower averages than we do.

That tells me despite the fact we have a guy rated 90 or above our quality of our class across the board is higher than all of those schools. 4 stars will help but I think saying this class is a failure based on lack on 4 stars and top 300’s is just short sighted.

Of the top 100 recruits they went to 20 schools currently. The majority of them are either USC, Texas, ND, SEC or schools that have either won national championships, competed in the game or made the CFP in the last 5 years.
 
Last edited:
I think top 30 classes should be standard at CU. And that WAS the standard up until Hawkins dumpsterfired the program. There's no reason CU should not be able to get a top 30 ranked class. Especially since all of the obstacles that hindered recruiting in the past have been removed. Top of the line facilities, long term assistant coach contracts, much more relaxed JUCO admission policies.... If it was standard to have top 30 ranked classes at CU BEFORE these changes, why are some people NOW acting like it's unreasonable?
 
skinsfan55 said:
Maybe I shouldn't, but I'm grading them on a curve. I'm not holding them to the same standards as Alabama, that doesn't make sense... but if we're grading recruiting within the limitations of this program, I think this class is exceeding expectations. It's gotta be a B+ or A- right?
Click to expand...

What if many of those limitations are self-imposed?
 
skinsfan55 said:
Maybe I shouldn't, but I'm grading them on a curve. I'm not holding them to the same standards as Alabama, that doesn't make sense... but if we're grading recruiting within the limitations of this program, I think this class is exceeding expectations. It's gotta be a B+ or A- right?
Click to expand...
B+ or A-? You sir, are drunk.
 
DrunkPanda said:
I think top 30 classes should be standard at CU. And that WAS the standard up until Hawkins dumpsterfired the program. There's no reason CU should not be able to get a top 30 ranked class. Especially since all of the obstacles that hindered recruiting in the past have been removed. Top of the line facilities, long term assistant coach contracts, much more relaxed JUCO admission policies.... If it was standard to have top 30 ranked classes at CU BEFORE these changes, why are some people NOW acting like it's unreasonable?
Click to expand...

I only think it’s unreasonable to grade a class based on the amount of 4 and 5 Star players you get or top 300. We have to get to and win a lot of games before we can nab the kids with 75 P5 offers. It takes a lot of kids to fill a roster and they’re still only 1 person though. Top 30 isn’t unreasonable by any means and should be the standard.

Duff Man said:
What if many of those limitations are self-imposed?
Click to expand...

IE coaches? We’ve agreed in the past we can’t lower the bar and need to nab higher ranking classes. I think this class is a step in the right direction and I’ve already set my standard that this class needs at least 3 4-Star high impact athletes next year to show we can recruit.
 
I have no idea of how any of these players will grade out individually. Looking at it in a broader sense, and not counting the 5 JC players, it looks like we have finally concentrated our efforts in our "natural" recruiting areas: 5 players from California, 4 from Texas, 3 from Colorado, and 1 each from Oklahoma and Washington. We'll know in a couple of years what kind of impact these guys will have, but at least we seem to be looking in the right places.
 
So does Lewis and Huntley leaving change the amount of guys we can offer? Or were one or both already Considered? Thanks
 
DrunkPanda said:
I think top 30 classes should be standard at CU. And that WAS the standard up until Hawkins dumpsterfired the program. There's no reason CU should not be able to get a top 30 ranked class. Especially since all of the obstacles that hindered recruiting in the past have been removed. Top of the line facilities, long term assistant coach contracts, much more relaxed JUCO admission policies.... If it was standard to have top 30 ranked classes at CU BEFORE these changes, why are some people NOW acting like it's unreasonable?
Click to expand...
35 for me, but yeah. It is not a bad class. It is not a stellar class.
 
I’m trying to figure out how close we are to done with recruiting for this class. Does losing Allen mean that we have one more spot? With all of our signatures today how many spots do we have left this year?
 
There are as many spots left that are needed. That being said, CU will only use those invisible spots on top guys like Murray and Boyd if they can get them to sign in February.
 
brockbuff said:
So does Lewis and Huntley leaving change the amount of guys we can offer? Or were one or both already Considered? Thanks
Click to expand...

SBP said:
I’m trying to figure out how close we are to done with recruiting for this class. Does losing Allen mean that we have one more spot? With all of our signatures today how many spots do we have left this year?
Click to expand...

Really, that's never really known and only guessed by the staff. It's usually a few they are sure about, a few they suspect, and a few others that will surprise you. We probably won't know that number, as coaches hate to put the number out there.
 
Darth Snow said:
Last year was the last time I would grade us on the "decade of awfulness" grade. That puts this class right around a B- with the chances for a B. It's a very deep class without any reaches, and it fills pretty much all the boxes you need it to. Getting a pass rusher tonight might bump it to a B. It's still not a top 25 (or even top 30) class.
Click to expand...
This is my favorite answer so far. I agree, B/B-.
 
I said B-

I do think it is a solid class, but still lacking in 2 area we need: pass rush and d-line.

One thought I had - is it an advantage to have a good, solid early signing class? Those last 2-3 players KNOW who they will be playing with. Not the usual crap shoot, waiting til the end to see.
 
Take stars and recruiting rank with a grain of salt unless you are in the top twenty or thirty recruiting classes. MM, for all his flaws as a coach, is a good talent evaluater and teacher. I like what I see in this class and believe in MM's ability to identify talent. I give this class an A-. I'll give it an A if they can sign another good looking OL.
 
8Jah said:
Take stars and recruiting rank with a grain of salt unless you are in the top twenty or thirty recruiting classes. MM, for all his flaws as a coach, is a good talent evaluater and teacher. I like what I see in this class and believe in MM's ability to identify talent. I give this class an A-. I'll give it an A if they can sign another good looking OL.
Click to expand...
An A?? You must not have very high expectations for CU if you think this is as good as it gets for us.

Also I think while our rank looks pretty good now, expect it to drop some since we're nearly full and many of the Pac schools have more players to add in February.
 
C+/B- After the season we had last year and the facilities we have, should have had 2-3 4-star players. I think we have 2-3 good recruiters and the rest are meh. Having Eliot as our DC doesn’t help.
 
Buffnik said:
Lee Walker
Johnny Huntley

Those are the announced transfers so far.

Lewis is not transferring
Click to expand...

Amazing that Huntley was the one of if not the top player in his recruiting class for CU, and that he was recruited over so fast by so many other good players. It would be great to see that at every position. I think CU is moving on up in the WESTSIDE (PAC12). I think this may be the best JC class ever. How many more spots would be open for February?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top