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!
Officially off the Macintyre bandwagon
- Thread starter Denver_sc
- Start date
I was actually thinking about this when I wrote the above post: I suspect Jeffcoat's "chill/laid back" recruiting style might play better with Jucos. They're a year or two older, a lot of them had high school recruiting experiences that may have left them a touch jaded, and their current coaches probably all come with a large dose of cynicism. Add it all up, and you probably have a lot more guys who are attracted to a low key soft sell.
It's really high risk because there's no room for mistakes. If something unexpected happens, you'll end up with a lost season really quick.
This thread is fantastic. Reigning national coach of the year. Took over the worst program in college football. Stop.
When does this argument expire?
You can't use it forever.
5 seasons?
7?
10?
30?
Please actually answer, so you don't move the goalposts some more later on.
Jeric
Club Member
Yes because through research the only logical conclusion from the data is that the 91st generally does better than the 113th and the 41st generally does better than the 53rd. There are, of course, anomalies but that doesn't invalidate it as with any data set. This is only half the elements that make a team though, so it merely confirms you're working against the odds against teams who have recruited better than you, and we've only defiantly beat those odds once so maybe... just maybe you shouldn't be dismissing it as part of the issue?
Through thorough evaluation and years of experience evaluating this sort of thing? A low three generally does better than a high two, so hey, looks like the facts are right again and these evaluations aren't nearly as weak as yours.
As a benchmark for overall success, I agree that this argument needs to die. However, I think it is still relevant if people are continually going to bring up his conference winning record/percentage since he arrived. If that’s the discussion people want to have, then maybe start in 2015 or 2016? 8-1 last year and 2-6 this year makes for a 10-7 Pac 12 record once he was able to have the team where he wanted it.
Sykobuff
Well-Known Member
National coach of the year, 10-2 team and then what? The last thing cu needed or needs is to take a step back.
They are 1 more inconsistent game on offense of going 5-7 after his great year in 2016. He has dead weight on staff.
2016 is over, forward not backward
8Jah
Well-Known Member
No one here knows if the 2017 class will be better than the 2014 class. The 2013 and 2014 classes put a bunch of folks onto NFL rosters. The 2013 class had CU's second all-time best running back by yardage. I am hopeful the 2017 class is better...but we don't know.
No kid in High School is a slam dunk to contribute at next level. Here is the way you should think about star ratings:
5 stars/high 4stars - almost no risk bet. Kids who could already play in DIV 1
low 4star/high 3star - low risk bet
low 3star/2star - high risk bet
Bluechip players coming out of high school are obvious to see. They are clearly at a different level and ready to play. Its not hard for the recruiting services to nail these kids. The two and the three stars are a mix of players. Some just arent good. Others are teenagers who are still developing as players. Its hard to know which is which. Recruiting services are just guessing there.
So between the 41st recruiting class with the 53rd, who are you to say which class made the better of risky bets?
If the 2017 class is not better than the 2014 class, MM is just not very good at talent evaluation.
Your argument about 3* players is old and tired as well. There is a distinct difference between mid-high 3* players and low 3* players. They usually have better measurable and have better offers.
I still do not get your angle here. You seem to be just saying "whatever" to any recruiting argument because you think it all just follows a script and expecting anything more from the current coaching staff is blasphemous.
Okay, so you don't want to go by star ratings, that issue has been hashed over ad nauseum here. I'll give you something easier to digest.
Are the other P5 coaches stupid, do they not know have a decent idea of who is likely to be a quality contributor to a winning team? After all nothing rides on it except their jobs.
Last year we finally signed a few players who had legitimate offers from top 25 type programs, a change from prior years in which we had very few of these guys. Still the majority of the players we signed we were in competition with other bottom end P5 programs. Simply put we aren't getting the players that the teams beating us want.
Maybe 2? It hasn't even been 1 season....
You've won me over here. There's clearly no difference outside of the top 30 classes. At this point, MM really should just ask his staff to focus exclusively on game prep and player development. On February 8th, the staff can hit the local HS's and see who has yet to sign an LOI. Given that there is really no differentiation in talent at that 2*-3* level, that time is better spent elsewhere.
Jeric
Club Member
It's been 5 seasons since he took over.
If I'm Rick George I simply want to know this:
1. How did those 7 commit to CU coming off a crap season when our HC position was being mentioned as a hotseat in early 2016, prior to the 2016 season?
2. Why did this success not accelerate, rather than decelerate in the same 2017 time period, coming off a league championship?
I don't think any of the recruiting guys here think it was Leavitt and Clark (who left to Oregon).
Did the slush fund only last for 6 months? Was Chev in their face a lot more at TTU, and that carried over and geographically, being here, takes him away from recruiting every week in Texas?
I tend to look at processes, systems, etc. Something is not working as well as it did for a brief period. Given our winning ways, 2017 should have been twice as "on fire" than 2016.
We have to assume the vacant staff positions really set us back early, don't we? But that does not entirely explain the slow start for sure.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
OMG? I am not blowing off recruiting. How many times can I say that I think recruiting is the most important thing. I am saying two things:
1) MM's problems are coaching MORE than they are recruiting. He doesn't can't find a way to make his players work harder than they think they are capable of.
2) Recruiting is most important. But you can't magically recruit better players with better salesmen at CU. You have to build a better program first.
and on the 3stars you just missed my point entirely.
8Jah
Well-Known Member
Did you have alot of trouble understanding things in school?
The question posed to me was when does the argument expire that MM was improving our program, and I showed facts showing it improved thru 2016. So when should that expire? Not 1 year later.
The question wasn't how long has he been working here, I'm quite aware of his tenure, thanks.
Come on. You are indirectly saying recruiting is not that important because you keep bringing up "hard work" as some sort of cure-all to the issues we have seen this season.
Recruiting better players does not require "magic," it requires a shift in strategy, including make staff changes. You have clearly accepted there is no art to recruiting, but there is very much an art and science. Just saying "win and they will come" is not a strategy and leads to a broken cycle of winning/recruiting gains never actually coinciding.
I did not miss your point on 3* players at all. You are the one making blanket statements on classes outside the Top 30 with no real factual basis.
You keep saying you think recruiting is important, but are downplaying any quantifiable metrics at every turn, which makes it easy to avoid actually holding a coaching staff accountable. When things are never really THAT bad or a lot of players are similar no matter the rating, it makes it quite easy for coaches to meet those half-hearted "expectations."
Also remember that Chev was not as active as he was spending time with his mom.
Jeric
Club Member
I don't see a question posed to you, I see someone replying to a post highlighting "Took over the worst program in college football" saying "When does this argument expire?". And neither post seems to have anything to do with you.
Good point. Plus you had the Tumpkin cloud hanging over most of the off-season.
But I still think it does entirely explain away the slow start.
I understand enough to know that 41 is better than 53, and it's been proven many times that the recruiting rankings are more accurate than you're giving them credit for. How you can draw the conclusion that the staff is recruiting to their current ceilings with even a cursory look at who is landing the 4* talent on this staff is beyond me. The distribution is skewed dramatically to 2 or 3 assistants, with others adding virtually nothing. Of course that can be improved on.
Not entirely, but I think we can attribute most of it to the staff. MM may or may not have been as engaged as we would all like given the circumstances, your recruiting coordinator and ace recruiter is spending his time and energy on his ailing mother, you have three defensive assistants to replace, and you replace them with three coaches who really don't have ties in our recruiting footprint. That put a ton of pressure on Adams and Hagan, who do an OK job, but aren't capable of carrying the weight of 4 or 5 other assistants.
post: 2323739
I did think that post was directed to me, as I didn't read it carefully.
But I think it's clear that I was answering the question posed (as I quoted it). and not sure why you corrected me to say how long he's been working here.
Jeric
Club Member
Frankly your post reads completely different to me so I would never have made that connection. I corrected you because the post seemed to be on the basis of when we'd stop hearing about him taking over the worst program in country and you just said it hasn't even been a year, and in the context it suggested to me you were interpreting it wrong or something because he took over the program 5 years ago and there wasn't anything to suggest from those two posts a different conclusion (without your context).
Last edited:
8Jah
Well-Known Member
As I said, recruiting services are confident in who they give 5star and high 4star ratings to because those kids are ****ing obvious in high school when you see them. that is why the different services agree on high 4 or 5 star ratings. They almost never agree on whose low four and whose high three star...so now opinion starts to come in. By low 3 and 2 star it is a crapshoot for the recruiting services.
Weve all seen the data:
Most NFL players come from 3 star and below, but there were way way more 3 and below stars to begin with
The second most NFL players come from 4 star
The third most NFL players come from 5 star recruits, but there are so damn few five stars to begin with, and most make it.
As a ****ing billion people have pointed out already, that doesn't mean you should turn down a 5 to get a 3. Just that surprise surprise teenage kids sometimes grow and learn.
That is why you can count on top 30 classes made of 5 and 4 and some high 3star recruits...you know what you are getting. For classes ranked higher than about 30 (and that is a ballpark number), who knows how those kids will turn out. but that doesn't mean you don't try to evaluate players and make a bet on the best ones you think you see. When you can't get the blueblood players, recruiting is about making bets on people.
So no, 41 isn't better than 53.
Last edited:
8Jah
Well-Known Member
Recruit our asses off, but its magical thinking to bank on getting some uberBro who knows how to manipulate the secret levers inside the minds of 17 year old boys.
Urban Meyer didn't have '"that guy" at Utah. Chris Petersen didn't have "that guy" at BSU. Harbough didn't have "that guy" at Stanford. They built a program from the players they had, then they got the platform to recruit the best players in the country.
Again, you are actively avoiding putting any sort of expectations on assistant coaches.
It is year five under MM... why are you deliberately framing this as a program still in rebuild mode? When do the recruiting expectations actually get raised? When we "win more?" Sounds a circular argument that absolves a coaching staff from recruiting misses.
Man, I guess rebuilding years are not acceptable.