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!

Officially off the Macintyre bandwagon

BlackNGold said:
This is your opinion (unless you have something to back it up). Others of us disagree. There has been a ton of statistical studies that show correlation between recruiting success and on field success even well beyond your arbitrary 30 number. Here is a graph from 2015 which pretty clearly shows correlation between winning and recruiting beyond you 30 number.

TKFTnLj.png
Click to expand...
So if you all want to look at it in tiers that matter in terms of your chances of winning a P5 conference:

A+ 1-5
A 5-10
B 10-25
C 25-35
D 35-55
F 55+
 
BlackNGold said:
This is your opinion (unless you have something to back it up). Others of us disagree. There has been a ton of statistical studies that show correlation between recruiting success and on field success even well beyond your arbitrary 30 number. Here is a graph from 2015 which pretty clearly shows correlation between winning and recruiting beyond you 30 number.

TKFTnLj.png
Click to expand...
Here is a graph from 2015 which pretty clearly shows correlation between winning and recruiting beyond you 30 number.

Dude where did you take statistics? THIS CHART MAKES MY POINT. Thanks for doing the footwork. After a rank of 30 (25 really) you don’t have a reliable trend in the mean and the error bars, indicated by the grey and orange diamonds, are huge. After 25 you could draw almost any trend line you wanted between error bars, including ones that made it look like lower classes did better...and in fact the mean trend after 60 would mislead you into thinking that they do. In fact you can’t infer anything from the mean trend below 25. What you can look at is the increasing variance in the error. Look how much variation there is in a ranking group below 25? The top error bars are the staffs that are really recruiting well but being ranked poorly. They do as well as most classes ranked in the top 20! What really turns my crank is the fact that the variance increases with recruiting rank! This means that recruiting rank becomes a crappier guide to actual recruiting as the class rank gets lower. EXACTLY.

I’ll help you out. This data does the arguement you are vainly trying to support a disservice in that it includes some G5 schools. That’s why they stop at 80. But I’ve looked at this stuff in the past and you’ll find it doesn’t change the conclusions.

Recruiting rank doesn’t reflect actual recruiting performance after a class rank of 30!
 
I have to agree with 8jah about what the data shows. If you are not filling your recruiting class with a good number of 4* and 5* recruits, the rankings don't seem to mean a whole lot. What I think the data shows is that below the rank of about 25 or 30, what becomes more important is not the ranking of the recruit by some rating service, but the ability of the coaches to identify the true talent and potential of the huge pool of 3* and even 2* players. These are the guys that make up the meat of just about any schools recruiting class. The coaches spend a lot more time, and go in to a lot more depth, in evaluating these guys than the ranking services do, and the really good recruiters consistently find the guys with "hidden" talent. It is not luck that some programs can consistently win more with what by rankings is a far inferior recruiting class. In my opinion it is not that they have some magical ability to make a class of 3* recruits into a team of 5* players. I think it is just as much that they have the ability to spot the 4 and 5 star talent hiding in the 3* ranked high school kids. Sure, it would be nice to be able to recruit like Georgia or Alabama, but the reality is we will probably never be able to do that.
 
It seems like most people on this thread think that we should see our recruiting zone in the 25-30 ranking area (with occasional splash years). If we are below that line, our coaches have failed to recruit what we’ll need for a higher chance for success. For those who downplay recruiting, I ask: if our program isn’t consistently recruiting to this level, what should we do?
 
steph said:
I have to agree with 8jah about what the data shows. If you are not filling your recruiting class with a good number of 4* and 5* recruits, the rankings don't seem to mean a whole lot. What I think the data shows is that below the rank of about 25 or 30, what becomes more important is not the ranking of the recruit by some rating service, but the ability of the coaches to identify the true talent and potential of the huge pool of 3* and even 2* players. These are the guys that make up the meat of just about any schools recruiting class. The coaches spend a lot more time, and go in to a lot more depth, in evaluating these guys than the ranking services do, and the really good recruiters consistently find the guys with "hidden" talent. It is not luck that some programs can consistently win more with what by rankings is a far inferior recruiting class. In my opinion it is not that they have some magical ability to make a class of 3* recruits into a team of 5* players. I think it is just as much that they have the ability to spot the 4 and 5 star talent hiding in the 3* ranked high school kids. Sure, it would be nice to be able to recruit like Georgia or Alabama, but the reality is we will probably never be able to do that.
Click to expand...
So then your saying CU expectation is:
1) Recruiting below 30, full of 2 and 3* where it doesn't really matter anyway.
2) Hope that MM and his staff can consistently coach them up to 4 and 5* playing
3) So you don't think there is a difference between 2017 class ranked 33 and the 5 previous years in the 60 or 70s?
4) There is no difference recruiting down with Mountain West schools or at least in the middle of the Pac12?

I think the next step is to jump from classes in the 60-70s to string a few together in the 30s, then jump into consistent classes in the 15-20 range.

Not banging on you, just trying to understand the mindset of the recruiting doesn't matter as much as most think crowd. Also do we honestly think that other then DBs, this staff is one that can coach up 2 and 3* guys to 4 and 5* level?
 
I really give up - if you cannot see that teams in 30-35 range have a significantly better chance of winning than teams over the 50+ range especially when you consider the 25th and 75th percentile numbers then you guys are going to refuse to believe anything other than what you want to believe,
 
BlackNGold said:
I really give up - if you cannot see that teams in 30-35 range have a significantly better chance of winning than teams over the 50+ range especially when you consider the 25th and 75th percentile numbers then you guys are going to refuse to believe anything other than what you want to believe,
Click to expand...
This ^^^^^.

Maybe we need a new thread where we can all layout what our expectations are for this program, coaching and recruiting. Seems some are pretty low and these people think if you have higher expectations them we are saying we expect Nick Saban era Alabama.

Disconnect of expectations within the fan base seems to be a real thing.
 
8Jah said:
Here is a graph from 2015 which pretty clearly shows correlation between winning and recruiting beyond you 30 number.

Dude where did you take statistics? THIS CHART MAKES MY POINT. Thanks for doing the footwork. After a rank of 30 (25 really) you don’t have a reliable trend in the mean and the error bars, indicated by the grey and orange diamonds, are huge. After 25 you could draw almost any trend line you wanted between error bars, including ones that made it look like lower classes did better...and in fact the mean trend after 60 would mislead you into thinking that they do. In fact you can’t infer anything from the mean trend below 25. What you can look at is the increasing variance in the error. Look how much variation there is in a ranking group below 25? The top error bars are the staffs that are really recruiting well but being ranked poorly. They do as well as most classes ranked in the top 20! What really turns my crank is the fact that the variance increases with recruiting rank! This means that recruiting rank becomes a crappier guide to actual recruiting as the class rank gets lower. EXACTLY.

I’ll help you out. This data does the arguement you are vainly trying to support a disservice in that it includes some G5 schools. That’s why they stop at 80. But I’ve looked at this stuff in the past and you’ll find it doesn’t change the conclusions.

Recruiting rank doesn’t reflect actual recruiting performance after a class rank of 30!
Click to expand...
If you really believe this then we should fire Mac immediately. We've been pulling classes ranked between 30 and 70 for a decade. If that's as good as we should expect to recruit and classes in that range all give us basically the same chance to win then Mac has shown he can't win at this level with that level of talent.

I think that's ridiculous, but it's the conclusion you must be coming to. The idea that the players we have just need to work harder is one of the stupidest things I've seen in here in a while.
 
Obviously there is some analysis that goes into determining the top 30 classes like looking at who actually makes it to campus, who stays there with grades, how many players are in the class but if anything those have all been pretty good under Mac so it would increase his ranking. My question is why do people think it is so hard to be around 30 every year? It was pretty obvious last year this program is more than capable of landing big time prospects and Mac does a great job with the lower level guys to bring up the rear of a class. Losing Tumpkin on the trail hurt as he did a good job in Florida, Houston and Louisiana but even Adams seems to be missing something this year in terms of his o-line class after killing it last year. Chev is Chev and will always be, Brown looks to be doing a pretty good job but Bernardi and Jeffcoat are absolutely killing the momentum this program has. If we had a couple high 3* guys on the d-line people would look at this class a lot differently as it is really the only hole outside of TE. So then you look at the coaches recruiting those positions and you see this isn't about working harder, evaluation, the program as a whole, it is about two guys not doing their job. You can make excuses all you want about it not mattering because recruiting is stupid but all the data suggests the opposite view.
 
onealcd said:
Obviously there is some analysis that goes into determining the top 30 classes like looking at who actually makes it to campus, who stays there with grades, how many players are in the class but if anything those have all been pretty good under Mac so it would increase his ranking. My question is why do people think it is so hard to be around 30 every year? It was pretty obvious last year this program is more than capable of landing big time prospects and Mac does a great job with the lower level guys to bring up the rear of a class. Losing Tumpkin on the trail hurt as he did a good job in Florida, Houston and Louisiana but even Adams seems to be missing something this year in terms of his o-line class after killing it last year. Chev is Chev and will always be, Brown looks to be doing a pretty good job but Bernardi and Jeffcoat are absolutely killing the momentum this program has. If we had a couple high 3* guys on the d-line people would look at this class a lot differently as it is really the only hole outside of TE. So then you look at the coaches recruiting those positions and you see this isn't about working harder, evaluation, the program as a whole, it is about two guys not doing their job. You can make excuses all you want about it not mattering because recruiting is stupid but all the data suggests the opposite view.
Click to expand...

Bottom-line, MM has done a poor job of recruiting, particularly with new facilities that are among the best in the nation and a tradition that validates recruiting and winning can be accomplished at CU. Being able to coach up 2 & 3 stars is great, but if you are constantly producing losing records, why is he still the coach? Everyone wants CU to do well on here, everyone should have lofty expectations. They are not being met, plain and simple. So the problem is not MM??? These are all of his recruits (minus Irwin, Lindsay and a couple others - BTW where would this program be without those holdovers) and coaches he has hired correct?
 
BuffinCali said:
Bottom-line, MM has done a poor job of recruiting, particularly with new facilities that are among the best in the nation and a tradition that validates recruiting and winning can be accomplished at CU. Being able to coach up 2 & 3 stars is great, but if you are constantly producing losing records, why is he still the coach? Everyone wants CU to do well on here, everyone should have lofty expectations. They are not being met, plain and simple. So the problem is not MM??? These are all of his recruits (minus Irwin, Lindsay and a couple others - BTW where would this program be without those holdovers) and coaches he has hired correct?
Click to expand...
Sorry if that post came off as trying to defend Mac, it wasn't meant to be that just to show that recruiting matters. He definitely deserves some blame for keeping those two on staff for so long and bringing them in the first place but let's stop with the Mac should be gone crap, he isn't going anywhere. He overachieved last year and so far has underachieved this year.
 
manhattanbuf said:
It seems like most people on this thread think that we should see our recruiting zone in the 25-30 ranking area (with occasional splash years). If we are below that line, our coaches have failed to recruit what we’ll need for a higher chance for success. For those who downplay recruiting, I ask: if our program isn’t consistently recruiting to this level, what should we do?
Click to expand...
The bottom for CU in an off year should be 35. Good years in the Top 15. Barnett recruited in that range. Hawkins got there in the beginning. Now that we’ve got facilities and a competitive team, CU should not get out-recruited by most of the P5. That’s a ridiculously low standard.
 
I agree, our recruiting has to be better than this. We've heard enough about rankings and stars so I'll leave that alone. There is this though. I get taking a few chances a class for guys maybe you have a feeling about developing nicely but that has to be limited imho. No more excuses. If some of the staff can't recruit, show them the door. Sucks but that's part of Mac's job. This is CU, we shouldn't be just hoping to be competitive with the best out there. When I started watching, CU would play anybody and their schedule backed that up. Wondering what happened to that because it's what sold me.
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
The bottom for CU in an off year should be 35. Good years in the Top 15. Barnett recruited in that range. Hawkins got there in the beginning. Now that we’ve got facilities and a competitive team, CU should not get out-recruited by most of the P5. That’s a ridiculously low standard.
Click to expand...

Nailed it. Maybe we’re all delusional but I can’t see why we can’t pull top recruits to boulder, there really isn’t any excuse. There are much worse places and campuses to be in the U.S. that are out recruiting us. Although I thoroughly understand why everyone wants to go to OSU, Michigan, Clemson, Alabama and so on. Their stadiums are fantastic and even I marvel watching on TV at the sheer amount on energy and excitement for those games.
 
Buffnik said:
The bottom for CU in an off year should be 35. Good years in the Top 15. Barnett recruited in that range. Hawkins got there in the beginning. Now that we’ve got facilities and a competitive team, CU should not get out-recruited by most of the P5. That’s a ridiculously low standard.
Click to expand...
Exactly. People used to be pissed when Barnett had a class ranked in the 30s, now there are people here that think it is impossible to get a class ranked over 30 at cu for some reason
 
Fortunately I don't think RG subscribes to 8Jah's recruiting philosophy because if he did, the Champions Center and indoor facility would represent a colossal waste of resources. You don't build facilities like that unless you have higher expectations for your program.
 
This seems as good of a thread to vent as there is. MacIntyre seems to know how to build programs but seems to lack the chops to keep that trajectory. I would not have been shocked by a 6-6 program, but I truly expected 8-4. Khalil Tate has made me realize that wasn't going to happen once 13 got knocked out of that game. The fact the Buffs are fighting for bowl eligibility with Losses to UCLA and ASU is maddening. Both teams are not particularly well coached.

Then take USC. The Buffs came out flat. That's on coaching. Then on top of it all, Mac made so many weak and PUSSY choices. The fact they were attempting field goals when playing USC is a huge issue. USC is not going to be held back and the Buffs needed TDs. Mac has to be playing to win and often is content in keeping it close. It's like he has resorted to confidence building it takes to build up the program instead of gusto. The end of game was awful. The drive was poorly managed and this is an ongoing problem I put on Mac and Lindgren. This happened at least a handful of times with Sefo and that's on coaching.

Mac was not in the best of light before the season. His sideline pouting and tirades are icing on the cake to make him look worse. RG isn't going to put up with this sort of season again. He expects a winner. Buffs need a Win for Utah for me not to label it an absolute failure.
 
DiggerBuffs said:
This seems as good of a thread to vent as there is. MacIntyre seems to know how to build programs but seems to lack the chops to keep that trajectory. I would not have been shocked by a 6-6 program, but I truly expected 8-4. Khalil Tate has made me realize that wasn't going to happen once 13 got knocked out of that game. The fact the Buffs are fighting for bowl eligibility with Losses to UCLA and ASU is maddening. Both teams are not particularly well coached.

Then take USC. The Buffs came out flat. That's on coaching. Then on top of it all, Mac made so many weak and ***** choices. The fact they were attempting field goals when playing USC is a huge issue. USC is not going to be held back and the Buffs needed TDs. Mac has to be playing to win and often is content in keeping it close. It's like he has resorted to confidence building it takes to build up the program instead of gusto. The end of game was awful. The drive was poorly managed and this is an ongoing problem I put on Mac and Lindgren. This happened at least a handful of times with Sefo and that's on coaching.

Mac was not in the best of light before the season. His sideline pouting and tirades are icing on the cake to make him look worse. RG isn't going to put up with this sort of season again. He expects a winner. Buffs need a Win for Utah for me not to label it an absolute failure.
Click to expand...

Agree with the needing to win at Utah for this not to be considered an ultimate failure of a year. I expected 8-4 as well with 6-6 if things went very poorly. Not getting to 6 wins is just not acceptable with the state of the Pac.
 
DiggerBuffs said:
This seems as good of a thread to vent as there is. MacIntyre seems to know how to build programs but seems to lack the chops to keep that trajectory. I would not have been shocked by a 6-6 program, but I truly expected 8-4. Khalil Tate has made me realize that wasn't going to happen once 13 got knocked out of that game. The fact the Buffs are fighting for bowl eligibility with Losses to UCLA and ASU is maddening. Both teams are not particularly well coached.

Then take USC. The Buffs came out flat. That's on coaching. Then on top of it all, Mac made so many weak and ***** choices. The fact they were attempting field goals when playing USC is a huge issue. USC is not going to be held back and the Buffs needed TDs. Mac has to be playing to win and often is content in keeping it close. It's like he has resorted to confidence building it takes to build up the program instead of gusto. The end of game was awful. The drive was poorly managed and this is an ongoing problem I put on Mac and Lindgren. This happened at least a handful of times with Sefo and that's on coaching.

Mac was not in the best of light before the season. His sideline pouting and tirades are icing on the cake to make him look worse. RG isn't going to put up with this sort of season again. He expects a winner. Buffs need a Win for Utah for me not to label it an absolute failure.
Click to expand...

Pretty simple at this point-MM beats Utah, or he's back on the hot seat going into next year. Rick George is not the type of AD who will tolerate 5-7 seasons with 3 layups in the non-con.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top