OL recruiting - a big problem

[Duff Man]

There are 20 spots of difference between Boise State and Colorado in the post you quoted. By your logic, why wouldn't Colorado have had EVEN MORE success than Boise State if the conferences were switched? If Alabama jumping from the high teens to the low twenties is a monumental leap forward, and Colorado had a 20 spot edge on Boise State during your average recruiting year, then logically you SHOULD expect to have had EVEN MORE success than Boise State had were the positions reversed and a far better team.

Which begs the question, of course, why aren't teams trying to move down to the soft, cushy conferences if it is so darned easy?

I accept the basic importance of recruiting rankings as being a RELATIVE indicator of talent. What I'm arguing is that these indicators are MUCH more accurate at the extremes than in the fuzzy middle. I would state, and I hope not to offend here, that Boise State had far more talent on their team during that 2006 to the present time period that we're discussing than Colorado did despite the 20 spot difference in recruiting rankings.

Let's say you're looking at 10,000 players. Of those 10,000, one hundred are CLEARLY elite. They are so far better than the rest that it's easy to say that they're going to be studs with a high degree of accuracy. 6000 are clearly worthless and just aren't good enough to play at the next level. You can say that with a high degree of accuracy. That leaves 3900 players that are a little harder to figure out. You assign them relative rankings but they may be heavily error prone.

You guys had the better coaching staff in that timeframe, so no, I should not logically expect EVEN MORE success than Boise in that timeframe. Unless you are now mixing up arguments and trying to say talent is all that matters and coaching is secondary.

The difference between 50 and 70 is nothing compared to the difference between 20 and 1. This is where playing some of these teams regularly ranked in the recruiting top 10 every single year becomes a factor. I have seen plenty of teams with top 5 recruiting classes in person. I have also seen plenty of teams ranked in the 20-25 range over the years as well.

In 2005 (the last winning season for the Buffs), we played several pretty good teams. Teams like Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and Missouri had multiple recruiting classes leading up to that season ranked in the top 20-30. We absolutely crushed them, all three of them. Unfortunately for us, we also had to face a Texas team that had several key contributors from a 2002 recruiting class ranked #1. They destroyed us twice that season and won the national championship.

 

[Buffnik]

It's probably a sign that my patience with the more personal shots is wearing a little thin that I'm bothering replying to this but...

2011 Score Results:

Arizona State 48, Colorado 14
Boise State 64, Arizona State 24

(Insert stereotypical comment about Colorado here.)

The Arizona State team we played was when they were on a roll and in 1st place in the Pac-12. You played the one that had fallen to 6-6, fired its coach and had a rash of injuries.

That said, Boise State was clearly a better football team than CU last season. In a neutral site matchup, BSU would probably beat last year's CU team 80% of the time at the end of our season (90+% at the beginning).

 

[Jaximus]

It's probably a sign that my patience with the more personal shots is wearing a little thin that I'm bothering replying to this but...

2011 Score Results:

Arizona State 48, Colorado 14
Boise State 64, Arizona State 24

(Insert stereotypical comment about Colorado here.)

I like your logic. Makes a lot of sense!

Here is some more for ya.

Boise beat Air Force 37 - 26.

(8-5) Notre Dame beat Air Force 59 - 33. By way more points!

(5-7) South Florida beat Notre Dame 23 - 20.

Connecticut beat South Florida.

Western Michigan beat Connecticut.

Therefore, Western Michigan is better than Boise. Yes, that makes sense.

 

[Jaximus]

I haven't acted like a jackass. I've been respectful and polite and discussed the substantive arguments and made no personal shots. I've been, in my opinion, a nice guest. I'm a guest with a different viewpoint than the one you have. It doesn't make me a jackass.

False

 

[nocoolnamejim]

The difference between 50 and 70 is nothing compared to the difference between 20 and 1.

You're basically agreeing with, and making my point, here. That's the entire thing that I'm trying to argue. Star Rankings are FAR more accurate at the extremes (5 stars and 1 stars) than they are in the middle. That's why I'm saying that they're a nice data point, a nice RELATIVE indicator, but that the more you get into the masses of players inbetween the extremes the less useful they become. To take a couple of OLinemen. Sean Harlow's ranked higher than Cameron Hunt at the moment, but they're both ranked as 3 stars. (Yes, I'm aware one projects at OT and the other at OG, bear with me here.)

Would it really surprise you to see Hunt end up being a major stud and Harlow a major dud? Probably not. Wouldn't surprise me either. When you have thousands of players that these professional agencies are evaluating, few common opponents, few head-to-head competitions, and are extrapolating years in advance with kids that are still growing/developing etc. the margin for error in the area that isn't the extremes is going to be pretty high.

Is it USELESS as a data point? Of course not! In fact, I'd argue that it's probably the most reliable indicator available. But it should still, in my mind, be viewed with some healthy skepticism.

 

[wsp4820]

You can't do much about your conference schedule. What offends me is when I see programs like Tulsa, Toledo, Miami(OH) or whatever finishing off Boise States' OOC schedule. I respect what Boise State has accomplished, but I have more respect for the Trent Dilfer and David Carr Fresno State teams that played anyone, anywhere. Those Fresno State teams hardly ever ended up ranked, but they beat some good teams, played some good teams tough, and had enough talent to put a ton of guys in the NFL. As much or more talent than the recent Boise State teams.

To be fair to the Boise States, Fresno's success with the "anyone, anywhere" scheduling is part of why it's now much harder for a team like Boise to schedule many big games. I may be wrong, but they try pretty hard to get bigger name teams on the schedule, but no one wants to play them...for many of the reasons we discussed already.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

The Arizona State team we played was when they were on a roll and in 1st place in the Pac-12. You played the one that had fallen to 6-6, fired its coach and had a rash of injuries. That said, Boise State was clearly a better football team than CU last season. In a neutral site matchup, BSU would probably beat last year's CU team 80% of the time at the end of our season (90+% at the beginning).

True enough. When you play someone matters, but I argue that's also often an excuse.

2008:
Boise State 37, Oregon 32

Oregon would go on to jump Boise State in the rankings based on "body of work" and "if they played again, Oregon would crush Boise State", etc. Essentially, the argument was that Boise State caught a far superior Oregon team at a bad time and that Oregon would win 9 times out of 10 if they played again.

2009:
Boise State 19, Oregon 8. Oregon doesn't get a first down until midway through the third quarter. Game not as close as final score indicates as Boise State outgains Oregon more than 2-1 in yardage and has a 25 minute advantage in time of possession.

Basically, a lot of times things like what you said up above are used as an excuse, historic revisionism, etc.

 

[dio]

I do think you guys are being a little harsh with Jim - he's been very reasonable in his short time here, and I don't think we should drive him away! Good posters from opposing teams is a good thing for allbuffs.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

I do think you guys are being a little harsh with Jim - he's been very reasonable in his short time here, and I don't think we should drive him away! Good posters from opposing teams is a good thing for allbuffs.

I'll second that.

 

[Jaximus]

What to do in Idaho when Boise isn't playing... I know, spend an entire day going on other teams website's to spread my propaganda! At least before ma calls me to the dinner table for meatloaf.

 

[Duff Man]

You're basically agreeing with, and making my point, here. That's the entire thing that I'm trying to argue. Star Rankings are FAR more accurate at the extremes (5 stars and 1 stars) than they are in the middle. That's why I'm saying that they're a nice data point, a nice RELATIVE indicator, but that the more you get into the masses of players inbetween the extremes the less useful they become. To take a couple of OLinemen. Sean Harlow's ranked higher than Cameron Hunt at the moment, but they're both ranked as 3 stars. (Yes, I'm aware one projects at OT and the other at OG, bear with me here.)

Would it really surprise you to see Hunt end up being a major stud and Harlow a major dud? Probably not. Wouldn't surprise me either. When you have thousands of players that these professional agencies are evaluating, few common opponents, few head-to-head competitions, and are extrapolating years in advance with kids that are still growing/developing etc. the margin for error in the area that isn't the extremes is going to be pretty high.

Is it USELESS as a data point? Of course not! In fact, I'd argue that it's probably the most reliable indicator available. But it should still, in my mind, be viewed with some healthy skepticism.

Okay, but my guess is we probably disagree with where "the middle" lies in this debate. After about 45 or so, who really cares. But I think there is a pretty big difference between #35 and #70 for instance. You seem to be implying that after the 5* players, it becomes a bit of a free-for-all and we will just have to disagree there.

 

[BuffNut99]

2009:
Boise State 19, Oregon 8. Jawpunch

 

[J.R. Ewing]

He had it coming.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

Okay, but my guess is we probably disagree with where "the middle" lies in this debate. After about 45 or so, who really cares. But I think there is a pretty big difference between #35 and #70 for instance. You seem to be implying that after the 5* players, it becomes a bit of a free-for-all and we will just have to disagree there.

I do too! We're mainly in agreement, but I think we're talking past each other in a couple of areas

Take Sean Harlow for example. You guys want him. Boise wants him. Right now Scout, for instance, rates him as a 3 star recruit. But he's currently rated two spots below the lowest 4 star recruit. That has a major difference in his impact on a class ranking, but do you really think he'd be that much worse than the guy ranked two spots above him? Even within 3 star prospects, there's a huge difference that I would argue the ranking system fails to really capture even if you ignore margin of error in evaluating high school kids.

A high 3 star is not the equivalent of a guy who just barely made 3 star, but for class rankings they count the same.

 

[Buffnik]

You're basically agreeing with, and making my point, here. That's the entire thing that I'm trying to argue. Star Rankings are FAR more accurate at the extremes (5 stars and 1 stars) than they are in the middle. That's why I'm saying that they're a nice data point, a nice RELATIVE indicator, but that the more you get into the masses of players inbetween the extremes the less useful they become. To take a couple of OLinemen. Sean Harlow's ranked higher than Cameron Hunt at the moment, but they're both ranked as 3 stars. (Yes, I'm aware one projects at OT and the other at OG, bear with me here.)

Would it really surprise you to see Hunt end up being a major stud and Harlow a major dud? Probably not. Wouldn't surprise me either. When you have thousands of players that these professional agencies are evaluating, few common opponents, few head-to-head competitions, and are extrapolating years in advance with kids that are still growing/developing etc. the margin for error in the area that isn't the extremes is going to be pretty high.

Is it USELESS as a data point? Of course not! In fact, I'd argue that it's probably the most reliable indicator available. But it should still, in my mind, be viewed with some healthy skepticism.

If that's your point... that Boise State has done one of the best jobs in the nation of evaluating and developing 3* and high 2* talent (and, as an extension, that Rivals-Scout-ESPN-247sports lose prediction accuracy in that range)... you won't find a single argument on this board.

If you're trying to say that you can live there and have elite success against programs that regularly sign 4* and 5* players or 3* players with multiple BCS offers... you're mistaken.

What we're saying is that Boise State does a great job with evaluation and development. They get 3* and high 2* prospects in a conference that is mostly 2* and unrated prospects at the other programs. So this extra talent leads to a gap that produces wins, especially when coupled with having a great coach. Winning breeds winning within a program. Stability of a system over more than a decade compounds that. Being able to rest starters in most games (and playing teams that aren't competitive most weeks) results in fewer injuries, less wear and tear on players (physically and mentally), and provides more opportunity to redshirt players for development purposes. In the end, you have very good teams that can win against just about anyone... despite the talent gap.

 

[dio]

I do too! We're mainly in agreement, but I think we're talking past each other in a couple of areas

Take Sean Harlow for example. You guys want him. Boise wants him. Right now Scout, for instance, rates him as a 3 star recruit. But he's currently rated two spots below the lowest 4 star recruit. That has a major difference in his impact on a class ranking, but do you really think he'd be that much worse than the guy ranked two spots above him? Even within 3 star prospects, there's a huge difference that I would argue the ranking system fails to really capture even if you ignore margin of error in evaluating high school kids.

A high 3 star is not the equivalent of a guy who just barely made 3 star, but for class rankings they count the same.

I agree that the shades of 3* is a defining characteristic between a good and a bad team.... however, Rivals does differentiate between with the star ratings by using numerical values.... 5.4 - 5.7 is a 3* I think.... so, you know a 5.7 prospect is going be of higher quality than the 5.4.

I think it is more important to look at offer lists anyway

 

[Buffnik]

To be fair to the Boise States, Fresno's success with the "anyone, anywhere" scheduling is part of why it's now much harder for a team like Boise to schedule many big games. I may be wrong, but they try pretty hard to get bigger name teams on the schedule, but no one wants to play them...for many of the reasons we discussed already.

They have refused to play 1-for-2 series or do one-offs on the road. Fresno State never shied away from that.

 

[Buffnik]

I agree that the shades of 3* is a defining characteristic between a good and a bad team.... however, Rivals does differentiate between with the star ratings by using numerical values.... 5.4 - 5.7 is a 3* I think.... so, you know a 5.7 prospect is going be of higher quality than the 5.4.

I think it is more important to look at offer lists anyway

For clarity, the recruiting sites don't just rate classes based on stars. It's graduated by where the player is ranked at his particular position and, in the case of Rivals, ESPN and 247sports, by the rating they give the player inside of the assigned stars.

Where it falls apart to the "anyone's guess" is when we're talking about players who are 3* or high 2* but are outside of the positional rankings. Most players signed outside the top 40 classes are mostly made of those types of prospects.

This is why I've always said that I am only confident that our classes bring the talent we need to compete for a conference title if they are ranked in the top 35. You do that consistently, you have depth of BCS talent and if you get the right quarterback (or maybe a dominant RB) you are able to challenge the teams that are recruiting in the top 10 while also taking care of business against all the other conference opponents who have been recruiting in the 20-50 range.

 

[MtnBuff]

True enough. When you play someone matters, but I argue that's also often an excuse.

2008:
Boise State 37, Oregon 32

Oregon would go on to jump Boise State in the rankings based on "body of work" and "if they played again, Oregon would crush Boise State", etc. Essentially, the argument was that Boise State caught a far superior Oregon team at a bad time and that Oregon would win 9 times out of 10 if they played again.

2009:
Boise State 19, Oregon 8. Oregon doesn't get a first down until midway through the third quarter. Game not as close as final score indicates as Boise State outgains Oregon more than 2-1 in yardage and has a 25 minute advantage in time of possession.

Basically, a lot of times things like what you said up above are used as an excuse, historic revisionism, etc.

You miss the entire point. Boise is in a conference with teams that are significantly less talented and successful than they are. (This applies in the WAC and now the MWC, likely if the BE thing happens it will be the same although less dramatic.)

By being in a conference like that and playing that schedule Boise only has to pay much attention to 2-3 games a year. The rest of the games give them two huge advantages. One is that by being 30 points up at half means that the starters get to sit, reducing dramatically the depth needed to get through the season. In a major conference they would be playing much more time against much better players and dealing with much more injury issues.

Secondly the starters on the bench means that the backups are getting significant time on the field to develop, by the time they become a starter they already have a bunch of game experience. If a normal team in a major conference tried to do this they would get killed on the field.

There is also the question of focus and preparation. Boise can beat up Idaho and San Jose State without having to get up for the game. They only expend the mental energy for those 2-3 teams a year that are legitimate threats.

Apples to oranges mid-major to major conference.

 

[Quattro]

I agree that the shades of 3* is a defining characteristic between a good and a bad team.... however, Rivals does differentiate between with the star ratings by using numerical values.... 5.4 - 5.7 is a 3* I think.... so, you know a 5.7 prospect is going be of higher quality than the 5.4.

I think it is more important to look at offer lists anyway

A 2* is a 5.2-5.4, 3* is a 5.5-5.7, a 4* is a 5.8-6.0, and a 5* is 6.1.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

I agree that the shades of 3* is a defining characteristic between a good and a bad team.... however, Rivals does differentiate between with the star ratings by using numerical values.... 5.4 - 5.7 is a 3* I think.... so, you know a 5.7 prospect is going be of higher quality than the 5.4. I think it is more important to look at offer lists anyway

Yep, Rivals does that...but it doesn't show up in class rankings. As an example, (and I apologize for using Boise State data. it's what I'm most familiar with. Discussion of Boise State is intended to be tangential to the discussion of the star rankings, not the focus.)

Last year, Boise State had ZERO 4 star commits per Rivals, but it had FIVE commits that Rivals listed at 5.7. Colorado, on the other hand, had 2 four star commits and 1 3 star ranked at 5.7 by Rivals and everyone else was below that. This had a pretty major difference in the overall class ranks. Something like 25 spots or what not.

If two of our commits get evaluated at 5.8 and two of yours get evaluated at 5.7, then our "class ranking" is probably flipped. (I'm oversimplifying a bit here, obviously, but bear with me.)

On paper, it looks like Colorado had a MUCH better class than us, but dig into the details and we both signed a ton of three stars, you got a couple of kids evaluated over the 4 star threshold and had a bit of a larger class, but I'm skeptical that there's a huge talent disparity like the one that exists when looking at the class rankings.

 

[Buffnik]

Yep, Rivals does that...but it doesn't show up in class rankings. As an example, (and I apologize for using Boise State data. it's what I'm most familiar with. Discussion of Boise State is intended to be tangential to the discussion of the star rankings, not the focus.)

Last year, Boise State had ZERO 4 star commits per Rivals, but it had FIVE commits that Rivals listed at 5.7. Colorado, on the other hand, had 2 four star commits and 1 3 star ranked at 5.7 by Rivals and everyone else was below that. This had a pretty major difference in the overall class ranks. Something like 25 spots or what not.

If two of our commits get evaluated at 5.8 and two of yours get evaluated at 5.7, then our "class ranking" is probably flipped. (I'm oversimplifying a bit here, obviously, but bear with me.)

On paper, it looks like Colorado had a MUCH better class than us, but dig into the details and we both signed a ton of three stars, you got a couple of kids evaluated over the 4 star threshold and had a bit of a larger class, but I'm skeptical that there's a huge talent disparity like the one that exists when looking at the class rankings.

What drove up the CU ranking was that we had players ranked high for their position.

For example, Clay Norgard was only a 5.6 3* but was ranked as the #4 FB. Positional ranking matters.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

What drove up the CU ranking was that we had players ranked high for their position. For example, Clay Norgard was only a 5.6 3* but was ranked as the #4 FB. Positional ranking matters.

Does it? I'm more familiar with Scout than Rivals. Do the Rivals rankings take those things into account or do they just go by the number of stars to derive the overall "points" for a class?

 

[Buffnik]

Does it? I'm more familiar with Scout than Rivals. Do the Rivals rankings take those things into account or do they just go by the number of stars to derive the overall "points" for a class?

Both Scout and Rivals take into account the positional ranking.

If one 3* is the #25 WR and another 3* is the #65 WR on Scout, the school the signs the #25 guy gets a higher-rated class than the school that signs the #65 guy.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

Both Scout and Rivals take into account the positional ranking. If one 3* is the #25 WR and another 3* is the #65 WR on Scout, the school the signs the #25 guy gets a higher-rated class than the school that signs the #65 guy.

That's really interesting. I didn't know that. Do you have a link explaining that methodology that I could look over? I'm really curious to see the details.

 

[nocoolnamejim]

It's been fun guys. I got to run for a bit. Thanks a bunch for the good discussion and having me around. Good luck with the rest of the OLine recruitment and congrats again on your Sutton win.

 

[Buffnik]

That's really interesting. I didn't know that. Do you have a link explaining that methodology that I could look over? I'm really curious to see the details.

Here you go: http://www.allbuffs.com/showthread.php/40639-Recruiting-Forum-Guidelines-amp-Stoudt-s-Recruitipedia

Scout ranks the top 25 for each school class using this formula:

Team Rankings are a math formula that based on a player's rating and his rankings. 5-Star is a rating, No. 1 quarterback is his ranking.

5 Star = 200 points
4 Star = 120 points
3 Star = 40 points
2 Star = 20 points

The No. 1 player at a position is worth 100 points, counting down to the last ranked player at his position to 0.

For Example, assuming Scout ranks 100 quarterbacks.

5-Star, No. 1 QB = 300 points
4-Star, No. 10 QB = 210 points
3-Star, No. 50 QB = 90 points
2-Star, No. 75 QB = 45 points

The Team Rankings are compiled of the Top 25 players per class. Some teams will over-sign, but only 25 count towards the Team Rankings.

***********************************

a statistician from UC-Berkeley developed this for rivals:

Please note you only take the top 20 prospects in this formula, ordered by # Stars descending.

POINTS = ((N / (N + 50)) * H) + ((50 / (N + 50)) * L)

where...

H = 250 for each 5-star commit + 140 for each 4-star + 75 for each 3-star + 20 for each 2-star + 10 for each 1-star

L = 18 for each 5-star + 12 for each 4-star + 8 for each 3-star + 3 for each 2-star + 1 for each 1-star

N = a big honkin' calculation, described below

CALCULATION OF N:
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
1 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 91-100

10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
6 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 41-50

24 for each commit ranked #1 on his official position ranking
18 for each commit ranked #2-5 on his official position ranking
8 for each commit ranked 6-X on his official position ranking, where X is dependent on detail position, as listed below...

--Dual-threat QB: 25
--Pro-style QB: 25
--Running Back: 35
--All-Purpose Back: 15
--Fullback: 15
--Wide Receiver: 50
--Tight End: 20
--Offensive Tackle: 40
--Offensive Guard: 30
--Offensive Center: 10
--Defensive Tackle: 50
--Weakside Defensive End: 20
--Strongside Defensive End: 30
--Inside Linebacker: 35
--Outside Linebacker: 35
--Cornerback: 40
--Safety: 30
--Athlete: 25
--Kicker: (no points awarded for rank lower than 5th)

If the team's average stars are greater than 3, add (100 * (Avg stars - 3)) to N.

 

[Darth Snow]

Buffnik: I'm not trying to lecture. I promise. I enjoy posts like yours for the different perspective they bring me that I would not get if I was discussing the very same subjects with a bunch of Boise State fans. Some Boise State fans might take offense at the description of the approach as "an utter failure". They might, for example, point out that Utah's recruiting classes were more or less the same as Boise State's, and they absolutely pounded the Alabama Sugar Bowl team. I do not. I take no offense. I ENJOY the outside perspective. I really and truly do. And moreover, my intent is not at all to aggravate or annoy or lecture or ANYTHING ELSE.

It's simply to enjoy getting and giving different points of view with fans that have a perspective and experiences different than my own.

Your contention is that the 2006 to 2011 Colorado teams would have been basically been contending for the conference championships in Boise State's conference every year. As an example, you listed the 2010 5-7 CU team.

Regular Season Records of the opponents Colorado beat that year: (Factoring out FCS Wins)

Colorado State: 2-9
Hawaii: 9-3 (I'd point out that Hawaii almost upset USC that year. They crapped the bed against you guys, but they were better than that game against you indicated.)
Iowa State: 3-7 (2 Wins against FCS opponents)
Kansas State: 5-5 (2 Wins against FCS opponents)
Georgia: 5-6

And from there you make the assumption that the 5-7 Colorado team would have contended for the WAC/MWC title. They had some definite quality losses, but I'm not seeing a ton of quality wins to support your point either.

I understand the viewpoint that you have no patience for BSU fans who have skepticism to some extent about talent, recruiting and star rankings. But the flip side of that is that you're basically saying that being the winningest program in college football over the last decade, including two BCS bowl wins, and nearly going to four BCS in four years (if only we had a kicker who could make chip shot field goals...), being excluded from BCS bowls 4 times despite a top-10 record in eight years...

You're basically implying that all of that is meaningless illusion. That if Boise State was in a "big boy conference" or "didn't play the little sisters of the poor" they'd have had the exact same sort of success that Colorado has had over the last few years. Conversely, you're saying that if Colorado played in Boise State's conference they would have had the exact same success as Boise State.

In other words, I'm not lecturing and I'm not trying to stress anyone's patience. But please also don't take my not buying the premise that recruiting rankings, WHILE A FACTOR, are the be-all, end-all of everything at face value. You mentioned that there are some programs who do a lot less with more, but there are also those who do a lot more with less.

For Colorado, fresh off the Hawkins era, I can definitely see where there might be some skepticism to the belief that coaches make talent work and not the other way around. From a Colorado perspective, Hawk had great seasons at Boise State and then came to Colorado and sucked balls. Ditto Koetter.

I love how Nik's post ends making the point that the Boise St approach is not sustainable because getting up for one game doesn't cut it in a real conference, and your post begins by using the example of Utah getting up for one game against Bama (who sleep walked into the game).

You are not getting it. We know coaching matters. But you can't turn lead into gold. At some point, you need the Jimmy's and Joe's. Getting up for one or two games a year is expected. I remember several times when Boise St was playing some godawful team and was obviously not really up for the game, and were actually losing or in a close game before pulling away late.

Why did they pull away? Individual talent. As games go on, talent shows. When coaches have nothing left in their bag of tricks, talent wins games.

If Boise was in a power conference, they would lose 3-4 games a year. In the SEC? Probably more. Would they have done better than CU under HaLk? probably. Cause that guy couldn't recruit and he sure as hell couldn't coach, while Peterson is a stud of a coach. But even he would need a few years to stock up the cupboard.

 

[Duff Man]

:bump:

The Spring Evaluation period is about to wrap up, so now is a good time to take a look at where we stand here. We are still in it for Cameron Hunt and Sean Harlow. Both will probably decide toward the end of the summer. Doubtful we get both, but hopefully we can land at least go one for two. Both guys may not have the lofty 4* ratings, but I think they are two of the better OL in the west and the gap between the "elite" prospects and quality BCS prospects does not seem to be that large this year.

Other names that we should know more about this summer after camps/visits:

Blake Nowland
Jonathan Huckins
Alex Mayes
J.D. Hinnant
Christian Daimler
Dwayne Johnson
Dan Skipper
Brayden Kearsley
Gunnar Graham
Andrew Bucklin

Obviously we have other offers out, but the above players are at least interested and are likely to visit Boulder this summer. Nowland could be our next commit. Mayes, Hinnant, Skipper, and Kearsley do not look likely right now. Not that ever counted on landing Skipper (nor do I think it would be a big loss), but it would be nice to make some sort of impression on the other three players.

Overall, pretty underwhelming IMO. Some guys on the above list like Andrew Bucklin and Gunnar Graham look like reaches to me. If we strike out on both Hunt and Harlow, we are looking at an average OL class at best.

 

[sackman]

Is flipping Fox a pipe dream? I've heard that UM is pulling some big time OL talent this year, and already has a bunch of guys on their roster.