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!

How important is it for Mac to get a win?

BlackNGold said:
Tini - nice research on your graphs. But when I study those the youth argument goes right out the door. Several teams are starting more freshmen than we are and both Utah and Washington have similar experience profiles to the Buffs. Does the two deep numbers get added to the starters?
Click to expand...

I think that looking at "youth" as a single variable is problematic.

Not when we're talking about Utah. That's fair.

But when we're talking about programs like Washington that have been bringing in highly-rated prospects, there's a huge modifier to "youth". Much of the ratings from the premium sites are based on how ready a guy is. You're not going to see a 4* placed on a 220 lb OL who needs a gray shirt year, a redshirt year and probably 2 more years of development before projecting to be a stud for 2 seasons. CU's recruiting developmental level talent, so our freshmen are worse than the freshmen of our competitors. The idea is that they won't be worse (or the difference will be much smaller) when they're all 21 or 22 years old.
 
skibum said:
The height of the orange bars does not bode well for next year.
Click to expand...
The biggest thing that stands out is that we are playing a ton of sophomores relative to the rest of the conference. Logically we should see a big leap from an underclassmen to upperclassmen like we have with Crawley. The chart also doesn't account for guys like Mariota or Hundley who are leaving after this year. Lots of QB turnover in the conference (with a very deep QB conference) where as we return ours.
 
Tini, forgot to say good job on the graphs - YMSSR

But, as BnG points out, it both helps and hurts the "we're young" argument. Isolating that argument, I think it could probably be said that there is a difference in talent between the upperclassmen populating our 2 deep, and those populating the other schools' two deeps.

But, some other things that jump out at me:
1. the dick shards, ASU, Cal, UO and furd are all going to have senior heavy squads next year (presuming that there isn't a mass exit for the no fun league).
2. look at the ridiculous class balance at the two Washington schools. Wow (especially UW).
3. the impact of the sanctions are painfully obvious at USC - it's going to take a couple years for them to re-balance (look at what Sark left at UW - he knows how to get there), but in the meantime, they're going to oscillate a lot - expect them to be very good 2017-2018, then fall off a bit, and look to be stabilized out around 2020.
4. I expect that next year our class balance will look like Utah's does this year.

And finally, think about what shape that graph should look like in an ideal situation, one where you never rebuild, you just reload. Seems to me you would want 7-9 seniors, 7-9 juniors, 3-5 sophomores, 1-3 RS freshmen and 0-1 true freshmen.
 
Last edited:
BlackNGold said:
Tini - nice research on your graphs. But when I study those the youth argument goes right out the door. Several teams are starting more freshmen than we are and both Utah and Washington have similar experience profiles to the Buffs. Does the two deep numbers get added to the starters?
Click to expand...
I agree with 'Tini on this one. I've posted the numbers as well, although not as eloquently as the kid. We START 13 underclassmen (Fr. and Soph.). Utah starts 7. We have 16 underclassmen in our offensive 2 deep and 20 underclassmen in our defensive 2 deep. Utah has about as many freshmen and sophomores but they start 0 freshmen and 2 sophomores on offense and 2 freshmen and 3 sophomores on defense. They have 9 underclassmen in their two deep on offense (to our 16) and 13 on defense (to our 20).
 
I raised two boys and they both were involved in sports in high school. So, I've seen a lot of kids develop. A lot of guys are really physically mature in HS. But I'd say more often, they aren't. Taking from Nik's post, I'd say that most 4/5 star guys are the ones who were really physically mature in HS. But I think more than half begin developing, physically from late junior year or into their senior year and on into college. So, while the 4/5's may be ready to contribute right off the bat, I'd say it's more probable that a kid will take a couple of years to reach the physical maturity level needed for college. So, the trick for the coaches is to identify the kids who will develop physically into a major college player.

I think that is what Mac is trying to do at this stage. And, unfortunately, he's probably had to press some guys into service before they've reached the optimum maturity level. Hopefully, within the next year or so, we'll see more physical development and more upperclassmen taking over and we will get into a better cycle as far as when kids are relied upon to contribute. And I think this is the best argument as to why Mac needs a full 5 years to turn things around.
 
Last edited:
nice post DBT ^ you are on your game this AM. I totally agree with your analysis. If we look back to our teenage/playing days? I remember those kids. It all just came more natural to them.
 
BuffUp said:
nice post DBT ^ you are on your game this AM. I totally agree with your analysis. If we look back to our teenage/playing days? I remember those kids. It all just came more natural to them.
Click to expand...
Yeah. **** them.
 
'Tini said:
Seriously? We play 4 OOC games, no excuse not to win those 4. In year 3 it is not unreasonable one bit to expect some conference wins and 2-3 wins would be a massive regression no matter how you slice it. There is a lot of turnover in the Pac 12 next year, specifically at QB which is the hardest position to replace.

Starters and Two Deep by Class compared to Pac 12 Average:
Senior Starters: +4.35%
Senior Two Deep: +29.73%

Junior Starters: -18.45%
Junior Two Deep: -42.86%

Sophomore Starters: 28.57%
Sophomore Two Deep: 33.33%

Freshman Starters: -7.69%
Freshman Two Deep: -3.23%

Our class balance is heavily skewed to sophomores, almost all of which will return. For the South, Arizona loses 11 senior starters and Utah loses 10 senior starters. We lose 8. Below is a graphic illustration of the starters-by-class and two deep-by-class:

Starters
egzX2XY.png


Two Deep
jwUgtGE.png
Click to expand...
nice work on the graphs! credit where credit is due.
 
Found this from USA Swimming:

"The age at which the adolescent growth spurt begins varies widely from one child to another. The variation is so great in a sample of normal males, for example, that some boys may have their most rapid growth as early as their twelfth birthday, whereas others will not have this growth experience until they are nearly sixteen. These slower-maturing boys will not have their muscle growth and rapid gain in body weight until more than fourteen months later, at seventeen or eighteen years of age. A very normal but slowly maturing young male will have completed high school, before he is physically suited to compete in many sports requiring large size, strength, and a mature skeleton."
 
When do we actually get to expect players to perform up to expectations? Most of the players we need to step up are still going to be relatively young juniors and sophomores next season.
 
Duff Man said:
When do we actually get to expect players to perform up to expectations? Most of the players we need to step up are still going to be relatively young juniors and sophomores next season.
Click to expand...
I think I heard Mac say that it takes them about 18 months to change a kid physically. I'd say 18 months to 2 years maybe. And then there is the mental maturity. Game experience. I would think that kids who play early will also mature, experience wise, earlier. My guess would be, that on average, a kid will begin performing to expectations in his 3rd year. I'd also bet a kid develops much more rapidly from one season to the next than he does during a season.
 
You should see flashes well before the junior year if a kid plays a lot as a freshman or sophomore.
 
Duff Man said:
You should see flashes well before the junior year if a kid plays a lot as a freshman or sophomore.
Click to expand...
You'd think so. But look at Gillam. He came in as a true freshman and was lights out. This year, he's kind of hit a speed bump, primarily due to health issues. I'd bet next year he will take a big step forward if he stays healthy. Crawley is a good example as well. He's just kind of steadily gotten better while Yuri has just been kind of stagnant. There are just a ton of factors and each kid is different.
 
Duff Man said:
When do we actually get to expect players to perform up to expectations? Most of the players we need to step up are still going to be relatively young juniors and sophomores next season.
Click to expand...

Everything had to be set up for us. A 2 deep full of upper classmen (Mac's recruits, not Embree's). Facilities completed, not just planned or under construction. A favorable OOC schedule, and some coaching and QB turnover in conference. Then a long as we don't have any injuries, we can have real expectations.
 
SINKRATZ said:
Everything had to be set up for us. A 2 deep full of upper classmen (Mac's recruits, not Embree's). Facilities completed, not just planned or under construction. A favorable OOC schedule, and some coaching and QB turnover in conference. Then a long as we don't have any injuries, we can have real expectations.
Click to expand...

So which teams in the P12 are moving backwards? Which team will CU pass?
 
Young bad players are often old bad players. Our recruiting is bad, and so the players are bad right now, but why should they get any better if the recruiting remains bad? It seems to me that having bad recruiting and bad young players means that we will have bad old players and bad recruiting in the future.
 
buffs04 said:
Young bad players are often old bad players. Our recruiting is bad, and so the players are bad right now, but why should they get any better if the recruiting remains bad? It seems to me that having bad recruiting and bad young players means that we will have bad old players and bad recruiting in the future.
Click to expand...
Well good thing it's that black and white!
 
buffs04 said:
Young bad players are often old bad players. Our recruiting is bad, and so the players are bad right now, but why should they get any better if the recruiting remains bad? It seems to me that having bad recruiting and bad young players means that we will have bad old players and bad recruiting in the future.
Click to expand...
Heavy, man!
 
buffs04 said:
Young bad players are often old bad players. Our recruiting is bad, and so the players are bad right now, but why should they get any better if the recruiting remains bad? It seems to me that having bad recruiting and bad young players means that we will have bad old players and bad recruiting in the future.
Click to expand...

That is a truth that bad teams don't like embrace. It destroys hope, but it is what it is.
 
Colorado Track Fan said:
That is a truth that bad teams don't like embrace. It destroys hope, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
If you want to take a shallow look at it then maybe. MacIntyre loves to recruit athletic guys with the frame to fill out, those type of guys will get better more often than not. On the flip side, they are not going to be as highly recruited because of that...see Isaac Miller.
 
'Tini said:
If you want to take a shallow look at it then maybe. MacIntyre loves to recruit athletic guys with the frame to fill out, those type of guys will get better more often than not. On the flip side, they are not going to be as highly recruited because of that...see Isaac Miller.
Click to expand...

The proof is in the pudding. We'll see. I hope so. All teams that recruit towards the bottom latch on to that ideal but few actually achieve those results. The wizard at KSU certainly has a good track record making good with recruits that nobody else wanted.
 
Colorado Track Fan said:
The proof is in the pudding. We'll see. I hope so. All teams that recruit towards the bottom latch on to that ideal but few actually achieve those results. The wizard at KSU certainly has a good track record making good with recruits that nobody else wanted.
Click to expand...
How is the proof in the pudding when most are still really young or haven't even arrived on campus? There's a difference between taking a guy with the frame and athleticism but needs fundamental and weight room work versus a guy who is nearing his max frame wise and isn't all that athletic and doesn't have much room to grow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top