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!
-
There has been an ongoing bug where club membership subscriptions have not been expiring. We have fixed this bug, and on October 7 users who do not have an active subscription will have their membership revoked, and you will be given the opportunity to renew. Please visit this post for details: https://allbuffs.com/threads/club-membership-privileges-not-being-revoked-when-yearly-subscription-ends.160161/
Recruiting rankings are becoming less important
- Thread starter Big Jim
- Start date
More staff = more $$ needed
Hey, at least we'll hear the PA announcer say our Punter's name louder and more clearly in 2022 since our AD has deemed "gameday experience" for fans more important than the product on the field.
You keep repeating this and it is bullshyt. We are only reacting to what the people in the Colorado Athletic Department have done. They have to prove that they are committed to recruiting really good players with their actions. Since the Dorrell hire, there’s not a lot of evidence to demonstrate that recruiting really good players is the priority it ought to be for the Colorado Athletic Department. If you have some demonstrable proof to the contrary, feel free to post it.
Is this the Fire Rick George thread again? He’s the person in charge of fundraising and resource allocation. I think you’ve grossly overestimated the costs of basic gameday experience items. But that’s neither here nor there. Bottom line is that the Athletic Director’s 1a job is fundraising. 1b is hiring a football head coach who can recruit the staff and players who can create a winning product so job 1a is easier. This has been a failure on Rick George’s part.
I agree it's RG's fault.
I'm being hyperbolic about the new sound system, but my general point is still valid for what I (and I assume most CU fans) care about with this program.
The only reason why fundraising is an issue is because Rick George lied to us about his priorities for the football team. People infrequently want to give money to folks who lie.
I suggested Lane's approach for CU.
But if that's where the majority go, I prefer to zig when others zag if I'm CU and am unlikely to win by following the herd. Consider how much talent is represented by the bottom 10 guys in all of the Top 30 recruiting classes. We'd probably be better served going after them, if available, rather that fighting those same programs for transfers.
But if that's where the majority go, I prefer to zig when others zag if I'm CU and am unlikely to win by following the herd. Consider how much talent is represented by the bottom 10 guys in all of the Top 30 recruiting classes. We'd probably be better served going after them, if available, rather that fighting those same programs for transfers.
HawaiiBUFF
Well-Known Member
When I saw this title - it just made me think of participation trophies. What a loser title. Of course they matter.
bigbang2
blindslighted
it was created by journalists to give fans something to talk about and something to write about. It is like the NFL draft. What matters is can the players you recruit play at an elite level or can yu develop the players you recruit. I am more interested in the amount of players that get drafted from a college program.
Weird that class ranks so closely correlate to winning.
bigbang2
blindslighted
You can find correlation in data that shows water is bad for you.
So you're saying that you don't believe that water is good for you?
Or are you saying that you don't trust any data?
bigbang2
blindslighted
Data can be used as part of the decision making process. I trust raw data. I don't trust the class ranking data. For example you have aJuco kid that is ranked as a 2 star affects the class rank. But he plays like a 5 star recruit out of high school. Also you have a 3 star OL that is 250 pountds coming out of high school. In 4 years he plays like a 5 star OL and gets drafted by the New England patroits and now plays for New York Giants.
Last edited:
There are always individuals who are outliers. Spud Webb didn't disprove the data that says NBA players are significantly taller than average humans. The outliers are cooked into the class rank data since every program is going to have its hits and misses.
Your roster talent is what the class ranks says it is.
bigbang2
blindslighted
Who decides who is a 4 star or who is a 3 star? It is not an outlier. There are many many examples of underated players. You do have programs like USC that get beat by Utah. But you also have programs like Alabama with can't miss prospects winning national championships every year.
Bliff Cranch
Well-Known Member
College football programs ranked by number of active NFL players
1-10:
Colorado ranks in a tie for 44th to 54th with 11. Without doing the research I’d bet the average signing day recruit rankings over the past 6-10 years closely parallel these results + or - four to five slots. There are outliers that clearly relate to the quality of the coaching that have either been there or not. Texas A&M, Texas, Oregon as examples. The point is, with just competent coaching, programs that can recruit well, do well. And they put a lot of players into the NFL. Those that don’t or can’t, do not. Ratings irrefutably matter.
1-10:
| Alabama | 53 |
| Ohio State | 47 |
| LSU | 46 |
| Georgia | 35 |
| Notre Dame | 34 |
| Clemson | 33 |
| Iowa | 33 |
| Florida | 32 |
| Michigan | 32 |
| Oklahoma | 31 |
Colorado ranks in a tie for 44th to 54th with 11. Without doing the research I’d bet the average signing day recruit rankings over the past 6-10 years closely parallel these results + or - four to five slots. There are outliers that clearly relate to the quality of the coaching that have either been there or not. Texas A&M, Texas, Oregon as examples. The point is, with just competent coaching, programs that can recruit well, do well. And they put a lot of players into the NFL. Those that don’t or can’t, do not. Ratings irrefutably matter.
Last edited:
Bliff Cranch
Well-Known Member
For those interested here’s the full list (circa Sept-2021)
| Alabama | 53 |
| Ohio State | 47 |
| LSU | 46 |
| Georgia | 35 |
| Notre Dame | 34 |
| Clemson | 33 |
| Iowa | 33 |
| Florida | 32 |
| Michigan | 32 |
| Oklahoma | 31 |
| Penn State | 31 |
| Texas | 26 |
| Miami (Fla.) | 25 |
| UCLA | 24 |
| Washington | 24 |
| Florida State | 23 |
| Texas A&M | 23 |
| USC | 23 |
| Stanford | 22 |
| South Carolina | 21 |
| Wisconsin | 21 |
| Auburn | 20 |
| Mississippi State | 19 |
| Oregon | 19 |
| NC State | 18 |
| Temple | 18 |
| Utah | 18 |
| Missouri | 17 |
| Nebraska | 17 |
| Tennessee | 17 |
| Pittsburgh | 16 |
| Virginia Tech | 16 |
| Arkansas | 15 |
| Boston College | 15 |
| Oklahoma State | 15 |
| Kentucky | 14 |
| TCU | 14 |
| Baylor | 13 |
| North Carolina | 13 |
| Ole Miss | 12 |
| Rutgers | 12 |
| Texas Tech | 12 |
| California | 11 |
| Colorado | 11 |
| Duke | 11 |
| Houston | 11 |
| Illinois | 11 |
| Maryland | 11 |
| Memphis | 11 |
| Oregon State | 11 |
| Purdue | 11 |
| Vanderbilt | 11 |
| West Virginia | 11 |
| Boise State | 10 |
| Louisville | 10 |
| Michigan State | 10 |
| Minnesota | 10 |
| UCF | 10 |
| Virginia | 10 |
| Kansas State | 9 |
| SMU | 9 |
| Western Michigan | 9 |
| Arizona State | 8 |
| BYU | 8 |
| Cincinnati | 8 |
| Indiana | 8 |
| Northwestern | 8 |
| Utah State | 8 |
| Arizona | 7 |
| Central Michigan | 7 |
| Florida Atlantic | 7 |
| Fresno State | 7 |
| Louisiana Tech | 7 |
| Syracuse | 7 |
| Toledo | 7 |
| Wyoming | 7 |
| Appalachian State | 6 |
| Colorado State | 6 |
| Georgia Southern | 6 |
| Georgia Tech | 6 |
| Old Dominion | 6 |
| San Jose State | 6 |
| Tulane | 6 |
| Connecticut | 5 |
| Marshall | 5 |
| San Diego State | 5 |
| South Florida | 5 |
| Southern Mississippi | 5 |
| Wake Forest | 5 |
| Washington State | 5 |
| Western Kentucky | 5 |
| Buffalo | 4 |
| Kansas | 4 |
| Northern Illinois | 4 |
| Rice | 4 |
| East Carolina | 3 |
| Eastern Michigan | 3 |
| Iowa State | 3 |
| Massachusetts | 3 |
| Miami (Ohio) | 3 |
| Middle Tennessee State | 3 |
| Nevada | 3 |
| North Texas | 3 |
| UTEP | 3 |
| Arkansas State | 2 |
| Army | 2 |
| Ball State | 2 |
| Florida International | 2 |
| Georgia State | 2 |
| Louisiana | 2 |
| Ohio | 2 |
| Troy | 2 |
| Tulsa | 2 |
| UAB | 2 |
| Akron | 1 |
| Bowling Green | 1 |
| Coastal Carolina | 1 |
| Hawaii | 1 |
| Kent State | 1 |
| Navy | 1 |
| New Mexico | 1 |
| South Alabama | 1 |
| Texas State | 1 |
| UNLV | 1 |
| UTSA | 1 |
If rankings truly didn’t matter, G5 programs would be winning and competing for national championships far more. Please stop.
Based on class ranks, Boise State also gets the best recruits in its conference (competition from SDSU and sometimes FSU). Weird.
bigbang2
blindslighted
Maybe the reason why I don't trust class rankings is I don't fully know who decides the rankings. Who decides the rankings?
Ratings by signing day tend to correlate to the quality of a players offers, a kid being offered by Bama, tOSU, etc in addition to others is going to be rated at least a high 3* if not a 4*.
Those programs didn't get where they are by being stupid. There is enough at stake and enough video available that quality players aren't being missed.
The idea that you can build a program on guys who were "missed" by other schools is sheer fantasy.'
Are there individual exceptions to the rule? Certainly just like there are undrafted players in the NFL who become all-pros but you don't build a roster with them and you don't build a college roster not beating other schools for talent.
Those programs didn't get where they are by being stupid. There is enough at stake and enough video available that quality players aren't being missed.
The idea that you can build a program on guys who were "missed" by other schools is sheer fantasy.'
Are there individual exceptions to the rule? Certainly just like there are undrafted players in the NFL who become all-pros but you don't build a roster with them and you don't build a college roster not beating other schools for talent.
People who are paid to go scout these players.
You’ve loved every CU recruiting class for years. That’s all you should need to reflect on to realize the ratings matter
Bliff Cranch
Well-Known Member
Professionals who are paid to do that research. It is a very large business.
Mix of former coaches and scouts who attend the camps and are interacting with current coaches to know who everyone's recruiting & offering, which recruits are priority recruits, etc. What that leads to, for example, are guys getting a big ratings bump at the end if a bunch of programs start recruiting him. It's largely, therefore, a ranking of how in-demand someone is relative to peers at the end while it starts more as eyeball test + measurables + accolades.