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!

Pac-12 Season News (2017)

CitizenKane said:
While they had a decent record last year, all their losses came in conference and the teams they beat outside of the conference weren't exactly great teams. I mean they played an awful Notre Dame, an average K-State, Average North Carolina and horrible Rice....Add to this that the QB who would otherwise be their starter is out, their o-line wasn't great last year (though four guys return....there is a real chance they will have three new starters), they lost their all world RB...oh and on defense their d line is in flux after losing the best d lineman in the conference. Don't see how they have any real hope of being as good as last year...In fact, as I look at their schedule I would pick them to finish 6-6, or if things go their way 7-5 (and that is with them getting out to a fast start).
Click to expand...
Can I get some of that Stanford 6-6 action? Lots actually.
 
buffaholic said:
I was personally surprised at how their DBs struggled when they had a few injuries. The best Stanford teams of the recent past could go "next guy up". Their were flaws with their team last year, including at QB. If I were a Cardinal, I'd be concerned that they are very slowly slipping backward. If they have a very good year and challenge UW for the title this year, I'll accept that they are not. But there's at least hints that they have made a few recruiting evaluation mistakes they didn't make 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

What about Stanford's incoming class don't you like? Size? PS # and stars are off the charts with likely frosh contributors and future all P12 performers.
 
hawg1 said:
What about Stanford's incoming class don't you like? Size? PS # and stars are off the charts with likely frosh contributors and future all P12 performers.
Click to expand...
Their 2016 class was amazing too, probably the best in the conference just smaller in size. I leaned my lesson betting against Shaw a couple years ago even though it looked like a great bet after their week one loss to northwestern.
 
Stanford will relax its requirements a little for athletes. They'd have to. There are kids with 4.0 GPAs and 1400 SAT scores that don't get in to Stanford. That said, their admission requirements for athletes are tougher than for most D-1 schools. There are always a few kids in each recruiting cycle that have their Stanford offer pulled due to academics. Bisharat was one such case, supposedly.
 
hawg1 said:
What about Stanford's incoming class don't you like? Size? PS # and stars are off the charts with likely frosh contributors and future all P12 performers.
Click to expand...
All of their classes have been great for a long time. But there were some misses in the upper few classes, so 2-3 years ago. Depth showed in falloff last year.
 
buffaholic said:
All of their classes have been great for a long time. But there were some misses in the upper few classes, so 2-3 years ago. Depth showed in falloff last year.
Click to expand...
Falloff? They won 10 games and finished last season winning 6 in a row including their bowl game.
 
Stanford recruiting is a paradox. Since they have stringent requirements (even for athletes), they have successfully made a Stanford offer quite valuable to a select number of high school football players. The pool of recruitable athletes is much smaller, so both hits and misses are magnified.

Where Stanford is at a much bigger disadvantage is the inability to recruit JUCO players or the ability to have early enrollees (very rare for them). So it is completely reasonable to think depth at some positions could be severely hampered by just a couple misses in 1-2 classes. I would venture to guess they have one of the lowest attrition rates in the country (last five classes have numbered 13, 20, 22, 25, and 14).
 
Duff Man said:
Stanford recruiting is a paradox. Since they have stringent requirements (even for athletes), they have successfully made a Stanford offer quite valuable to a select number of high school football players. The pool of recruitable athletes is much smaller, so both hits and misses are magnified.

Where Stanford is at a much bigger disadvantage is the inability to recruit JUCO players or the ability to have early enrollees (very rare for them). So it is completely reasonable to think depth at some positions could be severely hampered by just a couple misses in 1-2 classes. I would venture to guess they have one of the lowest attrition rates in the country (last five classes have numbered 13, 20, 22, 25, and 14).
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense. Kinda wondered the last few years how they were doing it.
 
SINKRATZ said:
Falloff? They won 10 games and finished last season winning 6 in a row including their bowl game.
Click to expand...
Yes. Check their PAC12 record since inception. 6-3 and finishing 3rd in North was a down year, especially given how far Oregon and Cal have fallen. First year they weren't REALLY good, just good.
 
buffaholic said:
Yes. Check their PAC12 record since inception. 6-3 and finishing 3rd in North was a down year, especially given how far Oregon and Cal have fallen. First year they weren't REALLY good, just good.
Click to expand...
I think we have different views on what constitutes a falloff. If a 10-win season that involves beating USC, winning a bowl game, and finishing the season on a 6-game winning streak is a falloff, then your program is doing something right.
 
A falloff is something less than what is accustomed. Not the same as a meltdown, disaster, devastation....

2016 they finished third in the North. 2015 they finished third in the country.

You're just trying to be argumentative.
 
buffaholic said:
A falloff is something less than what is accustomed. Not the same as a meltdown, disaster, devastation....

2016 they finished third in the North. 2015 they finished third in the country.

You're just trying to be argumentative.
Click to expand...
I'm disagreeing with your premise that this "falloff" is directly related to some recruiting misses several years ago so I guess I am being argumentative with you. Finishing 10-3 of sill a hell of a good season, ask USC who finished ranked #3 in the country.
 
Stanford had some key injuries in 2016 alongside an ineffective QB, for the most part. The fact they still won 10 games is all you need to know.
 
Despite the headline and the lead-in photos from when he was a boneheaded freshman, Rosen is very mature mature and provocative (in a good way) in this piece. Got me thinking about the great job that MacIntyre is doing with summer bridge program, expanded academic support, morning practice schedule, spring practices that don't compromise finals, etc., along with how we're seeing the payoff on this with football players getting degrees including master's during their time at CU, so few ineligible players, etc. It seems that Colorado is trying hard to find players who want an education and is giving them support to make it happen.
 
I get what he is trying to say but man it gets old when the top players who are going to the NFL complain that school is stupid and it is too much of a time commitment when 90% of the players need it more than ever.
 
onealcd said:
I get what he is trying to say but man it gets old when the top players who are going to the NFL complain that school is stupid and it is too much of a time commitment when 90% of the players need it more than ever.
Click to expand...
Except he's in a difficult major with plans to get a master's. It's not like it's someone who doesn't want to be in school who is making excuses. Seems to me that he's reporting the reality of the situation.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Sounds like that OL is still inexplicably bad.
Click to expand...
UCLA has a new coordinator (from Michigan, with much NFL experience) and a new OL coach (mostly NFL experience). It's a high stakes move. Could work thru some growing pains and be very good.... or not. They were awful last year, even before Rosen got killed.

Their D is pretty good, as their DC from Pedophile University is solid.

Since I have no confidence in Mora as a HC, I feel that they can still succeed with above average coordinators. However, that's unlikely to be a good long term strategy to success either as UCLA has always had difficulty paying coordinators enough to stay there when successful. Mora hasn't shown he knows good from bad when picking coaches (see last year)

Thus my worst case for UCLA is 2-10 and complete implosion. Best case though is 9-3 and talented enough to hang with anyone, if they can get that OL to gel and Rosen is healthy. Mediocrity is the most likely outcome, as they have not shown much team discipline under Mora and I suspect his players think he's an ass clown.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top