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!

ESPN Gave us a D

ESPN is a bit harsh, to rank Washington state ahead of us, is just madness, hard to take them seriously. I would give a B-, good pickups in Dorman, we address the DL and OL, by gettinig the likes of Asiata, Lewis, Mustoe, Parker, Nembot. We added speed and atheticsm in Harlos, Clark, Harrington, Henderson, Wahsington, Hall, Creer, Tuumalo, Greer. Daigh The only thing missing from this recruiting class is help at WR and DT. If we had landed Leilion, Lucen,Blackmon and maybe a Tod Peat Jr, the class would have being an A.
 
Last edited:
Scout ranking vs ESPN grade...bias?

#61 Buffs Grade D
#64 Kansas State grade C+
#67 Arizona State grade C
#68 Arizona grade C+
#70 Iowa state grade C-

CU was the only school in ANY BCS conference to receive a D grade or below. Is there bias? Well, those are the facts, you decide.
 
Creebuzz said:
Scout ranking vs ESPN grade...bias?

#61 Buffs Grade D
#64 Kansas State grade C+
#67 Arizona State grade C
#68 Arizona grade C+
#70 Iowa state grade C-

CU was the only school in ANY BCS conference to receive a D grade or below. Is there bias? Well, those are the facts, you decide.
Click to expand...

Fargin corksuckers!
 
When I was married, my father-in-law rated me a one star. Just saying.
 
Buffnik said:
Bottom line business. No reason to grade on a curve. Wins and losses won't be decided on a curve.

I like our OL recruits and liked the athleticism of the defensive prospects.

We need to do better than this, though.
Click to expand...

Welcome back brotha! Hope you are doing well and recovering. Glad to have your voice back on the board.
 
tgruenler said:
Normally I would agree but I think pulling those recruits and being able to flip 7 of them in 13 days should be worth a lot more than a D.
Click to expand...

TG, it is not about what the staff did but the grading of the guys we pulled. I think the staff get's a B for the kids they did get but the talent is not even close to what has to be the norm going forward. Even Embo said that with only 13 days they went after kids they thought they could get. That leaves a lot of meat ont he table. I believe these guys will get it done going forward and did a pretty damn good job with the cards dealt to them. But as Daah and others have said, it is graded on who committed and compared to what other hauled in. We were below average at best.
 
Buffalo Brad said:
TG, it is not about what the staff did but the grading of the guys we pulled. I think the staff get's a B for the kids they did get but the talent is not even close to what has to be the norm going forward. Even Embo said that with only 13 days they went after kids they thought they could get. That leaves a lot of meat ont he table. I believe these guys will get it done going forward and did a pretty damn good job with the cards dealt to them. But as Daah and others have said, it is graded on who committed and compared to what other hauled in. We were below average at best.
Click to expand...

Well said. The staff did the best they could under the circumstances, but we expect (and we will see!) incredible improvement next year.
 
Buffalo Brad said:
TG, it is not about what the staff did but the grading of the guys we pulled. I think the staff get's a B for the kids they did get but the talent is not even close to what has to be the norm going forward. Even Embo said that with only 13 days they went after kids they thought they could get. That leaves a lot of meat ont he table. I believe these guys will get it done going forward and did a pretty damn good job with the cards dealt to them. But as Daah and others have said, it is graded on who committed and compared to what other hauled in. We were below average at best.
Click to expand...
That was basically what I was saying but was typing it on my phone and didn't feel like typing a long response. For a transition class and the circumstances, the staff gets a B from me. If this was next year, yeah it would be a D+ for me but next year they will have a full year to recruit and we need a 5 star a couple 4 stars and the rest 3 stars and hopefully a couple sleeper 2 stars.
 
Hey DBT, was that a kindergaten type of star or did he base that off of a National recruiting resource?

BTW, espn can eat a wee knee. I shall give them a F minus
 
Creebuzz said:
Scout ranking vs ESPN grade...bias?

#61 Buffs Grade D
#64 Kansas State grade C+
#67 Arizona State grade C
#68 Arizona grade C+
#70 Iowa state grade C-

CU was the only school in ANY BCS conference to receive a D grade or below. Is there bias? Well, those are the facts, you decide.
Click to expand...

OOooor. Maybe they just expect more from us.
 
Buffalo Brad said:
TG, it is not about what the staff did but the grading of the guys we pulled. I think the staff get's a B for the kids they did get but the talent is not even close to what has to be the norm going forward. Even Embo said that with only 13 days they went after kids they thought they could get. That leaves a lot of meat ont he table. I believe these guys will get it done going forward and did a pretty damn good job with the cards dealt to them. But as Daah and others have said, it is graded on who committed and compared to what other hauled in. We were below average at best.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Two different concepts - what grade does the class deserve based on the talent of the players, and what grade does the staff deserve for putting the class together? I don't claim to be an expert on grading the players, but I think pretty much everybody agrees that we're not looking at a class this year that we want to see duplicated every year. And I say that even though I'm excited about several guys in this class. But the grade the staff deserves? Much better than the grade the class is going to get. That recognizes the fact that this class could have been a total and complete train wreck, considering when this staff arrived, how much time they had to be in contact with recruits, and the complete and total lack of groundwork laid by the outgoing stooges...

Where this staff gets judged totally on the basis of where their class grades out is next year. That starts today. I'm excited to see what this staff can do getting in on the ground floor recruiting a class and with a whole year to work with. But first, I really can't wait to see them get a team on the field. Can we start tomorrow????
 
I would like ESPN to rank all the other classes that only had 13 days to recruit, most players already commited elsewhere and 2 known verbal commits on January 1st....

Oh wait there wasn't any


ESPN can eat a dick. If you really sit down and think about our situation, I rate this class a B+

If this class was put together under a full year, I would't even be close to a b, more like a d. But given with what the coaches had to work with, it is damn impressive! Needs to be much better next year and I think it will, I'm talking about top 25 even more like top 20.
 
Last edited:
whatthebuff said:
Well, how'd you turn out?

The Seattle Times was nicer to us. We are ranked 9th and got a solid C+.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2014113508_pac1203.html
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, they also ranked UW above Stanford, while pointing out several losses by UW to a lot of other PAC-12 schools.

I thought especially interesting was this: "UCLA did get a signing-day win, however, from OL Torian White, who signed with the Bruins after committing to USC on TV earlier in the day." How the heck do they get to him in the middle of the day???
 
We should be graded at about a C+... not a very big class but some very underrated kids, so not high on star power but high on potential... I think we have 6-8 kids in here that are going to be major contributors.
 
tgruenler said:
If this was next year, yeah it would be a D+ for me but next year they will have a full year to recruit and we need a 5 star a couple 4 stars and the rest 3 stars and hopefully a couple sleeper 2 stars.
Click to expand...

If that is the type of class we are looking at with a full year to recruit and 25+ scholarships to give, that will disappointing.
 
I am very happy with the class this staff put together. They had a late start and were able to fill a lot of our needs. One more WR and a DT would have really filled all the voids in our current depth chart, but I have a question for everyone here:

What makes a successful recruiting class?

Is it getting a bunch of guys with stars next to their names?
Is it filling out the holes in the depth chart?
Is it having players who will start for you right away?
Is it having 6-10 guys who will be starters (while several others contribute on special teams) during their JR or SR year?
Is it having 4-6 guys who end up getting drafted by NFL teams?

It seems most rating services use the first two metrics to grade the class, which leads to the Notre Dame effect of having top 15 classes and a 6 – 6 record. In the end I don’t care about the ranking of the class on the 1st Thursday of February after they sign. I care about 3 years later when they are either developed into quality players. Rather than ranking the current class, the services should be ranking the 2008 class.
 
I'm okay with the D.
The grade in no way reflects the eleventh hour effort put forth by John Embree, who took the helm on December 5th.
What he has done to assemble a staff and bring in these talented players is miraculous.

The way I see it, the way to judge this is on a curve. No grade inflation. Top couple teams earn the A. Next couple earn a B. Numbers 5 through 8 get the C. 9-11 gets a D. 12 gets an F.

Number 60 is nothing to be proud of when you expect the team to deliver top 20 results. I expect Embree to build that kind of program. I speculate that if Embree had the benefit of starting a year earlier, his players would be different and the grade would have been better. And if CU were bringing in a bigger class, the grade might improve.
Given the size of the class and lack of recruitment coordination for 90% of the year, I'm pleased Embree didn't register an F or a DNF.

That low grade is on Benson, Bohn, and DiStephano, who extended Hawkins and kept him on through the Kansas disaster.

Embree's B+ last ditch effort at the end kept CU in front of WSU and the Arizona schools. That was a great finish.
The A would have required Kennedy to flip some big, fast, sure handed WRs from some B12S school.
 
Espn spent all day with the florida schools and the sec, everything comes down to coaching and making the players better.
 
bigbang said:
ESPN is a bit harsh, to rank Washington state ahead of us, is just madness, hard to take them seriously.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the ranking below Washington State, who was listed at 10th in the conference, is really puzzling. Just going by ESPN's own evaluations, I don’t see how you could justify that. CU Scores: 2 players @ 78, 2 @ 77, 2 @ 76, 4 @ 75 (total of 10 3-star players), 1 each @ 74, 73, 68, 67, and 66, 3 @ 45 (which is not rated), and an unrated JuCo Brent Burnette. WSU scores: 2 @ 77, 1 @ 75 (total of 3 3-star players), 4 @74, 3 @ 73, 2 @ 72, 1 @ 69, 2 @ 68, 1 @ 67, 4 @ 45, and 5 unrated JuCo kids, none of whom was good enough to earn a mention in the discussion of the grade.
 
**** espn. It's bad enough to have gapped tooth sidleine reporters who bring NOTHING to the table, and add to that more dumbass hosts who know nothing about any teams west of illinois. espn = TMZ
 
We're a little too concerned with ESPN's grade. They're not concerned with the circumstances of a coaching change and the 11th hour scramble - every team has some "circumstances" to deal with and that would take way too much time for ESPN to research. They're looking at number of stars...period, with some benefit of the doubt to programs and coaches with a track record. By those metrics, this class is a D...big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top