Recruiting seems to be on uptick

[lvbuff]

It is good to see CU offering higher rated athletes. Buffs coaches seem to have some swagger on the trail.

Hopefully, a lot of coffee gets poured over next few months.

 

[Swish]

I agree. Nice to see and I hope it turns into more success. We really need a couple of big wins in DL recruiting and as much success as possible in closing the borders.

 

[Buffnik]

It's fascinating how stars don't matter until CU starts getting visits and commitments from 4* recruits.

 

[Buffs1990]

We need to start getting 4 STAR LBs, DL and OL....I think its official that we are WRU at Boulder now.

 

[DrunkRalphie]

Way to jinx it. Asshole.

 

[Not Sure]

It's fascinating how stars don't matter until CU starts getting visits and commitments from 4* recruits.

Fans being fans. Not really that surprising if you stop to think about it.

 

[somebody]

We'll see

 

[DBT]

It's fascinating how stars don't matter until CU starts getting visits and commitments from 4* recruits.

Don’t know about stars, but credibility matters. And “stars” lead to a highly ranked recruiting class. And a highly ranked recruiting class builds cred which leads to better recruiting. Kind of like the “Circle of Success.”

 

[Bufffan68]

I wonder if other recruits look at prospective schools’ stars when making a decision. I wouldn’t think so but I really don’t know much about recruiting...it’s been years since I shifted through all my D1 offers

 

[Buffnik]

I wonder if other recruits look at prospective schools’ stars when making a decision. I wouldn’t think so but I really don’t know much about recruiting...it’s been years since I shifted through all my D1 offers

Very few things drive a successful recruiting year like getting a highly rated and charismatic commitment early who will recruit other guys into the class.

 

[8Jah]

It's fascinating how stars don't matter until CU starts getting visits and commitments from 4* recruits.

If you think about it only five star and 4 star rankings mean anything. Stars stop mattering below 4 star. Do you really know if a three star is going to be good? Maybe one will and another won't.

When CU was made of all three stars, then stars didn't matter. We were trying to find diamonds among the dirt. If we are starting to attract a lot of four stars then yea, stars matter.

If you think about it, only 5 star and 4 star rankings mean anything. Can't see how star rating matters that much below 4. Who knows if a 3 star is going to be good or not?

If CU classes are made of three stars, then stars don't matter. If we are starting to pull in a lot of 4 stars then yea, stars matter.
If you think about it, only 5 star and 4 star rankings mean anything. Can't see how star rating matters that much below 4. Who knows if a 3 star is going to be good or not?

If CU classes are made of three stars, then stars don't matter. If we are starting to pull in a lot of 4 stars then yea, stars matter.

 

[Buffnik]

If you think about it only five star and 4 star rankings mean anything. Stars stop mattering below 4 star. Do you really know if a three star is going to be good? Maybe one will and another won't.

When CU was made of all three stars, then stars didn't matter. We were trying to find diamonds among the dirt. If we are starting to attract a lot of four stars then yea, stars matter.

If you think about it, only 5 star and 4 star rankings mean anything. Can't see how star rating matters that much below 4. Who knows if a 3 star is going to be good or not?

If CU classes are made of three stars, then stars don't matter. If we are starting to pull in a lot of 4 stars then yea, stars matter.
If you think about it, only 5 star and 4 star rankings mean anything. Can't see how star rating matters that much below 4. Who knows if a 3 star is going to be good or not?

If CU classes are made of three stars, then stars don't matter. If we are starting to pull in a lot of 4 stars then yea, stars matter.

I disagree. There's a world of difference between a high 3* (the guys who get a 5.7 on Rivals) versus a low 3*. Some of those high 3* guys have crazy offer lists and are no different than a 4*. One of the biggest improvements we can see with CU recruiting is for most of our 3* guys to be in-demad 5.6 and 5.7 types instead of borderline 2* recruits.

These guys I'm talking about are basically Top 25 for their position that year. They're damn good.

 

[Bufffan68]

I disagree. There's a world of difference between a high 3* (the guys who get a 5.7 on Rivals) versus a low 3*. Some of those high 3* guys have crazy offer lists and are no different than a 4*. One of the biggest improvements we can see with CU recruiting is for most of our 3* guys to be in-demad 5.6 and 5.7 types instead of borderline 2* recruits.

These guys I'm talking about are basically Top 25 for their position that year. They're damn good.

Interesting. Most of our ‘19 commits are 5.6-5.8...1 or 2 5.5s. We seem to be doing better.

 

[patebuff]

CU has always offered highly rated recruits. The problem in the past is they have gotten almost no where with them. A lot of the change this year is due to the early official visits that hadn't take place in the past. MM has done a tremendous job of taking advantage of that. Oh, and CU has better recruiters than a few years ago. Still need to land some of these guys though, otherwise it means nothing.

 

[Duff Man]

I disagree. There's a world of difference between a high 3* (the guys who get a 5.7 on Rivals) versus a low 3*. Some of those high 3* guys have crazy offer lists and are no different than a 4*. One of the biggest improvements we can see with CU recruiting is for most of our 3* guys to be in-demad 5.6 and 5.7 types instead of borderline 2* recruits.

These guys I'm talking about are basically Top 25 for their position that year. They're damn good.

Absolutely correct. A high 3* player can be ranked around 350ish in the country whereas the low end of the 3* players can be way back in the 1600 range. There is a HUGE difference in the range of 3* players.

 

[lvbuff]

I would think the rating has to be highly subjective. Is there a metric out there somewhere?

 

[Buffnik]

I would think the rating has to be highly subjective. Is there a metric out there somewhere?

It depends on whether you consider the evaluation of an "expert grader" to be objective or subjective data. And, of course, whether you consider the guys employed by 247sports, ESPN and Rivals to actually be expert graders.

 

[hawg1]

If you think about it only five star and 4 star rankings mean anything. Stars stop mattering below 4 star. Do you really know if a three star is going to be good? Maybe one will and another won't.

When CU was made of all three stars, then stars didn't matter. We were trying to find diamonds among the dirt. If we are starting to attract a lot of four stars then yea, stars matter.

If you think about it, only 5 star and 4 star rankings mean anything. Can't see how star rating matters that much below 4. Who knows if a 3 star is going to be good or not?

If CU classes are made of three stars, then stars don't matter. If we are starting to pull in a lot of 4 stars then yea, stars matter.
If you think about it, only 5 star and 4 star rankings mean anything. Can't see how star rating matters that much below 4. Who knows if a 3 star is going to be good or not?

If CU classes are made of three stars, then stars don't matter. If we are starting to pull in a lot of 4 stars then yea, stars matter.

Stars matter in the aggregate. Correlated to winning percentage at all levels.

Plus not all three stars the same. Neither with 4 and 5 stays. I’ll take a 4 star QB over a similar star OG any day.

 

[8Jah]

If you look at the star rating system statistically, then the stars represent confidence levels more than anything else.

High Confidence: We are confident the roughly 30 5-star players a year are going to be good...because they could be playing college ball right now. No projection is needed. These guys also get studied to death by programs and the recruiting services.

Strong Confidence: The four stars are guys that are already grown men or kids who show athletic ability that projects clearly to the next level. There are about 400 of these guys a year and they get looked at pretty closely. Every year more than a few of those projections are wrong though.

Some Confidence: There are ~1500 three stars per year and they get studied way way less - some more than others. The ones that just happen to strike somebody's eye gets studied some, the ones that don't barely get studied at all. This group contains kids that are still growing and learning and a lot of projection is needed to estimate how they will do at the next level. Statistically, it is a fools errand to rank within the three stars...the error bars swamp the rankings at this level.

 

[MtnBuff]

CU has always offered highly rated recruits. The problem in the past is they have gotten almost no where with them. A lot of the change this year is due to the early official visits that hadn't take place in the past. MM has done a tremendous job of taking advantage of that. Oh, and CU has better recruiters than a few years ago. Still need to land some of these guys though, otherwise it means nothing.

Have to look at why you are getting the highly rated recruits.

If it is because you are selling kids on coming to the school that a bunch of other schools also want then you tend to be in good shape. This usually involves some serious work on the part of the coaching staff.

If you are getting highly rated guys because other schools are backing off them for some reason then you are inviting problems. We have had a number of these guys (Dan Hawkins and JE grabbed a bunch) who make your class rankings look good but often never do much for you because of the reasons other schools back off.

 

[8Jah]

Stars matter in the aggregate. Correlated to winning percentage at all levels.

Plus not all three stars the same. Neither with 4 and 5 stays. I’ll take a 4 star QB over a similar star OG any day.

Well lots of four and five stars matter even without the aggregate. Different tiers of three stars might matter a little in the aggregate...but I don't think that is relevant because staffs can't recruit a position each year in the aggregate...they have to pick somebody.

Totally agree though about the star-ranking vs position. Its easy to see if someone is freakishly skilled in HS, but always hard to project how big and strong a kid is going to be when he becomes a man.

 

[ahoelsken]

Stars don't mean that much. Look no further than Darrell Scott (who I think Talkins and his staff did a crappy job with when he got here). You've gotta be able to coach these guys up when they get onto your campus, and thats where I think our staff needs to improve.

 

[somebody]

Stars don't mean that much. Look no further than Darrell Scott (who I think Talkins and his staff did a crappy job with when he got here). You've gotta be able to coach these guys up when they get onto your campus, and thats where I think our staff needs to improve.

Like statistics, they mean little to nothing for a single player, but a lot more over a wide range of players.

 

[Duff Man]

Stars don't mean that much. Look no further than Darrell Scott (who I think Talkins and his staff did a crappy job with when he got here). You've gotta be able to coach these guys up when they get onto your campus, and thats where I think our staff needs to improve.

This viewpoint just assumes that most players are capable of being "developed" to the same level, which is obviously not true.

 

[lvbuff]

There are always outliers in any data set. Fast kid built like a Roman god should be up there. But he is dumb as a bag of hammers.

Or has some ****ty background issues or etc etc.

Seems like a tough job to effectively evaluate after measurables.

 

[Ringer]

It may be true that star rankings don't matter too much to us, but they absolutely do to the 17 year old blue chippers who are deciding where to go and look at their immediate commitment predecessors.

 

[lvbuff]

A student of mine who is a coach at Idaho State says the intangibles are character and adjudication factors. He says you can have greased lightening but if the kid is shot between the ears there is no point.

 

[lvbuff]

My only complaint is a lack of offers to DL.
Been a buff weakness for more than a decade minus 2016

Edit: that was year some recruiting came to fruition

 

[Bison]

I'll check back in a few years if this recruiting class was truly epic.

 

[Bufffan68]

Stars don't mean that much. Look no further than Darrell Scott (who I think Talkins and his staff did a crappy job with when he got here). You've gotta be able to coach these guys up when they get onto your campus, and thats where I think our staff needs to improve.

I have a feeling Scott was used to physically dominating in HS so he didn’t have the work ethic. When he transferred out he still did nada. A good eval by CU staff should’ve caught this...but oh well...I though Speedy was really cool.