How to win without bluechip recruits

[fatbuff]

are you buffclass90?

For sure.

 

[somebody]

Your Weber State comments are hyperbolic and overplayed. It's getting really tiring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll take fatbuff's realism over sunshine pumpers every time. His attitude comes from been there, done that, in this program. Where have you been? What have you done?

 

[buffaholic]

Cool article, but while CU's recruiting is upticking a bit, we are not anywhere near the recruiting level of TCU, Missouri, or Michigan State. Im still a huge MM fan and think that things will progress over time, and maybe soon. I especially like the veer towards getting much better in the running game, the hire of Jim Leavitt, and the recent moves towards getting bigger at LB.

Maybe re-read Nik's post above?

I look at it more like Pinkel and Patterson had a certain recruiting philosophy they used to build up their respective programs. As they've gotten better, so have the recruiting classes. But they still don't recruit within the elite rankings and have refused to compromise on the principles that have gotten them to their current level.

They are elite and they recruit way below that level. We are the worst team in P5 perhaps over the last 10 years.

 

[buffaholic]

Snyder at KSU does this. Chris Petersen at UW has always done this. Saban does this. Saban? Yes.

He's just got the luxury of vetting pretty much any recruit in the country and he discards a lot of talent, many which show early Alabama offers but never have a chance of signing there. Saban used the same system at MSU that he does at Alabama, he's just swimming in a different pool now days.

I also get what Duff says above.

Interesting article. Not sure I see the parallels to here, but hopefully I am wrong.

While I think that HCMM has a system and is following his recipe, it's really up in the air still if that works.


Unfortunately all we got to measure at this point is W-L records (not good) and Recruiting Rankings (not good).

Thus, too many here weigh his chances of success at Colorado based on recruiting rankings almost singularly. None of the coaches in this article or mentioned in this post would have made a signficantly different splash on LOI day, here at Colorado at the same point in their careers (i.e. their first P5 job).

I'm firmly in the camp that progress is being made and we are on the right track here, but it will take awhile. That turnaround will be evident in W-L record before it's evident in Recruiting Rankings. That doesn't mean we aren't recruiting the players we need to make it happen. So it sounds like blind faith to most.

 

[fatbuff]

I'll take fatbuff's realism over sunshine pumpers every time. His attitude comes from been there, done that, in this program. Where have you been? What have you done?

I do try to check my negativity in my posts, and find myself deleting posts before I submit them if I think they are negative without being constructive. I just get frustrated when the worst recruiting at CU in at least 30years is met with every excuse and rationalization under the sun. I believe every stat about recruiting can, to an extent, be disregarded as a measurement for success, except for the offer lists of the recruits that we are going after. If there is a kid worthy of a P5 scholarship, more than likely another P5 coach is going to find him and offer him. When you can only point to three recruits with other P5 offers, I think it deserves further scrutiny.

 

[fatbuff]

Snyder at KSU does this. Chris Petersen at UW has always done this. Saban does this. Saban? Yes.

He's just got the luxury of vetting pretty much any recruit in the country and he discards a lot of talent, many which show early Alabama offers but never have a chance of signing there. Saban used the same system at MSU that he does at Alabama, he's just swimming in a different pool now days.

I also get what Duff says above.

While I think that HCMM has a system and is following his recipe, it's really up in the air still if that works.


Unfortunately all we got to measure at this point is W-L records (not good) and Recruiting Rankings (not good).

Thus, too many here weigh his chances of success at Colorado based on recruiting rankings almost singularly. None of the coaches in this article or mentioned in this post would have made a signficantly different splash on LOI day, here at Colorado at the same point in their careers (i.e. their first P5 job).

I'm firmly in the camp that progress is being made and we are on the right track here, but it will take awhile. That turnaround will be evident in W-L record before it's evident in Recruiting Rankings. That doesn't mean we aren't recruiting the players we need to make it happen. So it sounds like blind faith to most.

It is blind faith. Any good coach was going to get the team looking better and more organized regardless of bringing in more talent, and that is what the pumpers are basing their faith on. The problem is, if MMac doesn't get some wins and gets shticanned before he improves recruiting, the next coach is going to have to start from scratch and get talent in here before he can be successful. The next coaching prospects are going to go though the roster with a fine-tooth comb, and prior recruiting is a big part of that. Who wants to take on a total rebuild? Im hopeful bringing JL on board will be a big help with recruiting, and if not, MMac will not be our coach for much longer. Recruiting is the single most important aspect of winning college football, and that belief is held by everybody but a few people on AllBuffs.

 

[Yung Buffalo]

I'll take fatbuff's realism over sunshine pumpers every time. His attitude comes from been there, done that, in this program. Where have you been? What have you done?

Oh my god :rolling_eyes:

-I'm not sure how there was anything in my post that could be considered sunshine pumping
-Experience doesn't always equate to wisdom or know how
-I have never posted on this board that I was happy with recruiting. In fact I'm quite disappointed. However, comparing our recruiting to Weber State is hyperbole, and it is a comparison he has made multiple times. Hence my comments.
-You and Fatty make a cute couple :thumbsup:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DBT]

I do try to check my negativity in my posts, and find myself deleting posts before I submit them if I think they are negative without being constructive. I just get frustrated when the worst recruiting at CU in at least 30years is met with every excuse and rationalization under the sun. I believe every stat about recruiting can, to an extent, be disregarded as a measurement for success, except for the offer lists of the recruits that we are going after. If there is a kid worthy of a P5 scholarship, more than likely another P5 coach is going to find him and offer him. When you can only point to three recruits with other P5 offers, I think it deserves further scrutiny.

I'd love to see the ones you deleted!!! :lol:

 

[WizzersGhost]

It is blind faith. Any good coach was going to get the team looking better and more organized regardless of bringing in more talent, and that is what the pumpers are basing their faith on. The problem is, if MMac doesn't get some wins and gets shticanned before he improves recruiting, the next coach is going to have to start from scratch and get talent in here before he can be successful. The next coaching prospects are going to go though the roster with a fine-tooth comb, and prior recruiting is a big part of that. Who wants to take on a total rebuild? Im hopeful bringing JL on board will be a big help with recruiting, and if not, MMac will not be our coach for much longer. Recruiting is the single most important aspect of winning college football, and that belief is held by everybody but a few people on AllBuffs.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...........could you be any more self-important and self-righteously arrogant on this issue? Probably not. You're about a half step above Slider here, maybe not even that much.

What that article also shows is that continuity seems to have as much impact as recruiting. Development can only occur when a coach is given time to develop his players in an organized, thoughtful manner, something you and all the other purported, self-designated "realists" want to ignore. WB was fired because he had no plan and showed he was incapable of developing or coordinating anything, whether it was a plan for development, a solid staff, a recruiting effort....nothing! He threw a buch of crap against the wall and tried to find out what would stick. That got his sorry as* deservedly fired.

MM was hired because he knew what to do a, has a plan and is in the process of executing it.

You "realists" all whine about the "last ten years, starting with DH'" when you should be whining about who really triggered the downfall of this program, Mr Great Buff Gary Barnett. That's who MM has to recover it from, not WB or DH. GB let the recruiting slide and his hands-off approach let the non-scandal grow legs.

Now, CU has a guy whose plan is yielding significant improvements, that you now want to discount as "any coach could do that" . His "no-talent" (your definiton, not mine) squad forced the mighty UCLA, with 60 or more 4* players, into 2 OTs; something that should have been impossible by your standard. That game should have been a blow-out by the end of the 1sr Qtr. by your standard, as should the UW game, the ASU game and any other game where the "vastly superior" recruits of the opponents should have trammeled the Buffs (like what Fresno St. did). But oddly enough they didn't....so what gives? Now, a recognized weakness in defensive approach and coaching has been addressed, after continuity and familiarity with the old DC, were used to lay a new foundation. Progress was made and is being built upon and it wasn't forced by RG..

What's the "realist" response? Veruka-like, you and the rest of your ilk, all want it now, in terms of wins and losses. Or its tar and feathers and bring in another new coach to start all over from ground zero, destroying any continuity, something whic would merely extend your own pain over the program. Noobs like you haven't ever seen the bottom in Boulder, ( as I have, with a HS coach brought in to handle a totally depleted roster), so just back off with your selfish, ego-assuaging crap and let the man do his job. You might even watch more carefully.....you could even learn something personally.....................but probably not, front runners like rarely do.

 

[fatbuff]

Yeah, yeah, yeah...........could you be any more self-important and self-righteously arrogant on this issue? Probably not. You're about a half step above Slider here, maybe not even that much.

What that article also shows is that continuity seems to have as much impact as recruiting. Development can only occur when a coach is given time to develop his players in an organized, thoughtful manner, something you and all the other purported, self-designated "realists" want to ignore. WB was fired because he had no plan and showed he was incapable of developing or coordinating anything, whether it was a plan for development, a solid staff, a recruiting effort....nothing! He threw a buch of crap against the wall and tried to find out what would stick. That got his sorry as* deservedly fired.

MM was hired because he knew what to do a, has a plan and is in the process of executing it.

You "realists" all whine about the "last ten years, starting with DH'" when you should be whining about who really triggered the downfall of this program, Mr Great Buff Gary Barnett. That's who MM has to recover it from, not WB or DH. GB let the recruiting slide and his hands-off approach let the non-scandal grow legs.

Now, CU has a guy whose plan is yielding significant improvements, that you now want to discount as "any coach could do that" . His "no-talent" (your definiton, not mine) squad forced the mighty UCLA, with 60 or more 4* players, into 2 OTs; something that should have been impossible by your standard. That game should have been a blow-out by the end of the 1sr Qtr. by your standard, as should the UW game, the ASU game and any other game where the "vastly superior" recruits of the opponents should have trammeled the Buffs (like what Fresno St. did). But oddly enough they didn't....so what gives? Now, a recognized weakness in defensive approach and coaching has been addressed, after continuity and familiarity with the old DC, were used to lay a new foundation. Progress was made and is being built upon and it wasn't forced by RG..

What's the "realist" response? Veruka-like, you and the rest of your ilk, all want it now, in terms of wins and losses. Or its tar and feathers and bring in another new coach to start all over from ground zero, destroying any continuity, something whic would merely extend your own pain over the program. Noobs like you haven't ever seen the bottom in Boulder, ( as I have, with a HS coach brought in to handle a totally depleted roster), so just back off with your selfish, ego-assuaging crap and let the man do his job. You might even watch more carefully.....you could even learn something personally.....................but probably not, front runners like rarely do.

Just admit your fragile psyche cant handle reality. You need a nursemaid to help you deal with a ****ty program. As a noob and frontrunner, I can dare to say your post does nothing to support the "significant improvements" that you are claiming. Since you are not a noob or frontrunner, can you answer me if that high school coach that was brought in ever went 0fer in a conference that it could be argued was much stronger than the one that we are in now? You can blame GB for laying off of recruiting, but it does nothing to the argument that three coaches later, recruiting is as bad as it ever has been. If continuity is so ****ing good, why didn't we just keep Embo? Surely we would be Pac12 Champs in a couple years. Spare me your bull**** commentary that not being blown out while going 0fer in conference necessitates my belief that MMac can get the job done at CU. I am not looking for immediate results, nor is anybody on this board, you insufferable twat. Just like nobody said we should be beating USC and UCLA for recruits. Some people just don't find hope and faith a legitimate answer to the program's problems.

 

[DBT]

UCLA and USC may get "Bluechips", but we get "Buffalochips" baby! And no one wants to mess with Buffalochips! Have you ever seen anyone try to block a Buffalochip? Have you ever seen anyone try to tackle a Buffalochip? HELL NO!

 

[SINKRATZ]

You "realists" all whine about the "last ten years, starting with DH'" when you should be whining about who really triggered the downfall of this program, Mr Great Buff Gary Barnett. That's who MM has to recover it from, not WB or DH. GB let the recruiting slide and his hands-off approach let the non-scandal grow legs.

This is just so wrong. Who was the coach the last time CU was relevant? If CU makes the right hire after GB, or doesn't extend Hawk, or doesn't hire EB, we're probably not still talking about the scandal. It was a series of compounding mistakes, sh**ty coaches, and gross mismanagement that got us here.

Then you go completely off the rails in your next paragraph - all those games you mentioned we lost, remember?

 

[Buffnik]

The slide started in the 2003/2004 time frame with the "scandal" and what it did to recruiting, university support, season ticket base, etc. GB deserves fault for that. There's plenty of blame to go around and intelligent people can disagree with how much of that should land on GB. But within that, he held the program together with duct tape and dental floss and kept CU to a mid-level of talent and success. The program could have had quick success under his replacement if the right hire had been made. By the time the Hawkins era was over, the program was in much worse shape. It was in worse shape again after the Embree years.

 

[SBG]

This quote caught my eye:



There's a lot of sense in that comment. You need difference makers, but you can't have a team filled with them. You need a team filled with guys who know what they're doing and are always in the right place at the right time doing the things you need them to do. I don't know if we're there yet or not, but in this last class, there are three, maybe four guys who can be classified as "difference makers". Montez, Carr, Falo and Lynott. The team needs those four guys to live up to their potential, but just as importantly, the team needs the other 14 guys in the class to be solid, smart and motivated football players. Once we get that, we'll be on to something.

You know difference makes can have good football IQ. It's not like great players are all morons. I'd kill to have a team full of difference makers at OL, DL, CB, QB, RB. Basically a USC or OSU type.

 

[slider]

@wizzer- about half of your posts include something about me. It's kinda creepy

 

[Burrito]

@wizzer- about half of your posts include something about me. It's kinda creepy

It's accurate in this case. Get over yourself.

 

[Deleted member 807]

The slide started in the 2003/2004 time frame with the "scandal" and what it did to recruiting, university support, season ticket base, etc. GB deserves fault for that. There's plenty of blame to go around and intelligent people can disagree with how much of that should land on GB. But within that, he held the program together with duct tape and dental floss and kept CU to a mid-level of talent and success. The program could have had quick success under his replacement if the right hire had been made. By the time the Hawkins era was over, the program was in much worse shape. It was in worse shape again after the Embree years.

It's not just the coaching decision that imploded CU Football. There was a breakdown in institutional support for the program. CU let facilities investment plans collect dust while nearly everyone else in the conference was building, upgrading, and improving their football profile. CU leadership bought into the concept of NCAA institutional control to a degree unparalleled by peers who also had missteps and downright nasty news stories, but were somehow better able to recover.

To pin CU's downfall on a scandal or on GB's media gaffs is just myopic.

 

[WizzersGhost]

@wizzer- about half of your posts include something about me. It's kinda creepy

That's cuz about half my posts deal with stupid negativity by noobs. If the shoe fits...... feel creeped out!

Fatbuff blowing chunks about stars and P5 offers, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, per usual......go join the U$C fan club. We don't want or need the likes of you.

 

[Buffnik]

It's not just the coaching decision that imploded CU Football. There was a breakdown in institutional support for the program. CU let facilities investment plans collect dust while nearly everyone else in the conference was building, upgrading, and improving their football profile. CU leadership bought into the concept of NCAA institutional control to a degree unparalleled by peers who also had missteps and downright nasty news stories, but were somehow better able to recover.

To pin CU's downfall on a scandal or on GB's media gaffs is just myopic.

Were you expanding on my post? Because if you're arguing, I think you mis-interpreted what I wrote and missed some of it.

 

[fatbuff]

That's cuz about half my posts deal with stupid negativity by noobs. If the shoe fits...... feel creeped out!

Fatbuff blowing chunks about stars and P5 offers, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, per usual......go join the U$C fan club. We don't want or need the likes of you.

Go jerk yourself off at netbuffs you ****ing ****ity ****.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

Go jerk yourself off at netbuffs you ****ing ****ity ****.

Can we please just ban this fat **** already?

 

[Buffnik]

No personal attacks. Crossing the line, guys.

 

[Deleted member 807]

Were you expanding on my post? Because if you're arguing, I think you mis-interpreted what I wrote and missed some of it.

Yeah, I'm absolutely expanding the point.

Some like to point to a single moment or single event that cratered program. Some examples:
- Skippy recruiting Katie Hnida to kick was the point where the wheels started falling off.

- Lisa Simpson party that included recruits

- Gary Barnett's "terrible kicker" comment on top of Hoffman's "term of endearment" quip, followed by 70-3 loss to Texas

- Hawkins year 5 extension, followed by a nostalgia hire of an under qualified Embree

Each of these events are watershed moments in the downfall of the program.

Each event was a symptom of a disease, but not at the root of the problem.
The cause of CU's downfall was institutional neglect and incompetence over a period that lasted from 2004 through 2012.

The priorities were based upon
1) Run Ralphie at the beginning of each half. A true sacred cow!
2) Run a balanced budget where the AD is self-sufficient.
3) Run players off the team where salacious sex allegations exist
4) Run stories about academic achievement and stadium recycling
5) Re-run past glory.

Absent from this list was any emphasis on providing student athletes with the best facilities, the most talented coaches, and a fan experience that evolved with changing dynamics in the sports-entertainment industry. For CU to be relevant, the ticket buying fan has to have a reason to keep buying tickets. Bowl games, home wins, and an interesting OOC slate matters. The game-day experience matters. The on-line and television viewing options matter.

It is not sufficient to have a strategy that is based on repeating the past or copying the success of others. For CU to be attractive to recruits and fans, it has to sell something different and do football better than everyone else. It needs leaders who lead, and have an eye towards the future.

I think the light finally turned on with Benson and shown by his support of the new coaching and AD hires. But I'm still not convinced he is a rabid fan of college football. His latent support comes off more as contrition than visionary leadership.

It is taking a painfully long time to turn this ship around. MacIntyre is selling his culture based on Family, Foundation, Future, and Football. He offers a grueling Pac12 schedule where players can test themselves against the best players in the country. He can offer trips to SoCal and the Bay area. He can point to new construction. But he can't yet point to wins, or a track record of sending his players to the pros.

As fans, our opinions are all over the spectrum. Some preach patience and pour over recruiting and statistics in order to spin an agenda that trumpets any angle where progress can be argued. Some expect CU to be restored to past glory and will settle for nothing less than national rankings, conference championships, and signature victories against the best. Others still are resigned to wait and see whether or not MacIntyre is the right man for the job. Few are able to articulate exactly what Colorado Football really stands for, and how our brand of Football is more appealing than in rival locations around the conference and across the nation?

What exactly is Colorado Football these days, given the last 10 years of futility? What does CU football really aspire to be given our location, budget, and institutional context? Are we sure we have assembled the right collection of talent and resources to deliver the results we expect? When will progress in the Win/Loss column materialize? How will we get from our current sorry state of affairs to where we want to be? Are the regents, president, chancellor, AD, and major boosters all in alignment? What can we be doing to get better at even a faster rate? What can each of us as fans do to best support the program we love?

Being able to respond to these questions with concrete and realistic answers is critical, and this is the job of CU's leadership to tackle.

 

[somebody]

Oh my god :rolling_eyes:

-I'm not sure how there was anything in my post that could be considered sunshine pumping
-Experience doesn't always equate to wisdom or know how
-I have never posted on this board that I was happy with recruiting. In fact I'm quite disappointed. However, comparing our recruiting to Weber State is hyperbole, and it is a comparison he has made multiple times. Hence my comments.
-You and Fatty make a cute couple :thumbsup:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:lol: Complain about me putting words in your mouth while trying to stuff mine. I didn't call you a sunshine pumper, Nancy. In fact, I made no attack at you all, I just disagreed with your label. You called fb negative, I called him a realist. Get over yourself.

 

[Yung Buffalo]

:lol: Complain about me putting words in your mouth while trying to stuff mine. I didn't call you a sunshine pumper, Nancy. In fact, I made no attack at you all, I just disagreed with your label. You called fb negative, I called him a realist. Get over yourself.

Ok, so tell me where in my post did I "label" him? Where in my post did I call him negative?

And you call yourself a realist

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yung Buffalo]

Nm

 

[patebuff]

Go jerk yourself off at netbuffs you ****ing ****ity ****.

:wow:

 

[Quattro]

Go jerk yourself off at netbuffs you ****ing ****ity ****.

Nice to see you behaving like an adult

 

[fatbuff]

Sorry to offend some of your delicate sensibilities. But, I stand by letting anyone that wants to run people off that have different opinions than themselves about the direction of the football program, know that they can go **** themselves with a pitchfork. Especially when said people have probably never even attended CU, and believe that buying a ticket to a game makes them a donor.

 

[Burrito]

Sorry to offend some of your delicate sensibilities. But, I stand by letting anyone that wants to run people off that have different opinions than themselves about the direction of the football program, know that they can go **** themselves with a pitchfork. Especially when said people have probably never even attended CU, and believe that buying a ticket to a game makes them a donor.

Fatty has more rights than you. He's entitled to it.