I have to assume they really like the whole room to risk an empty class. Otherwise, wouldn't taking at least one make sense?
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!
Recruiting so far...
- Thread starter BatBuff
- Start date
I have to assume they really like the whole room to risk an empty class. Otherwise, wouldn't taking at least one make sense?
Fixed. Definitely a WR.
Tucker keeps mentioning him. Hagan gets little respect as a recruiter but Mangham was his guy.
If Mangham turns out to be the real deal, I have no issue giving Hagan a lot of credit. He will have earned it.
If the RB group struggles this year, he should bear the brunt of the blame.
Not a lot of room for sentiment at this level.
If a coach produces you keep him, if he doesn't you have to replace him.
It's not about if we like or don't like Hagan, it's all about is he doing the job.
fwbuff
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
RB is a position where you need depth given the injury rate.
Even if we had that (questionable at best), we still need to take an RB every year.
Who knows? Maybe they don't love the class this year and think they're in good position on a couple guys for 2021? Just spitballing.
I gave a B+.
I thought about grading on a curve as one poster postulated. But MT says "no excuses", so I won't let CU's state of affairs affect my grade.
I do think that you have to grade based on what 'class' we're taking. If it's a graduate level class, like SEC, that's one level. With CU presently an undergraduate quality football team, then the grading / expectations are different. That does sound like grading on a curve,I guess, but I think a subtle difference.
As the title to the poll states, it says recruiting "efforts". MT and his chosen coaches are definitely putting exceptional effort into recruiting. The likes we haven't seen for a long time. He's been here only seven months and the effort and results are outstanding. Setting the groundwork for future greatness, especially after the wins this year.
I thought about grading on a curve as one poster postulated. But MT says "no excuses", so I won't let CU's state of affairs affect my grade.
I do think that you have to grade based on what 'class' we're taking. If it's a graduate level class, like SEC, that's one level. With CU presently an undergraduate quality football team, then the grading / expectations are different. That does sound like grading on a curve,I guess, but I think a subtle difference.
As the title to the poll states, it says recruiting "efforts". MT and his chosen coaches are definitely putting exceptional effort into recruiting. The likes we haven't seen for a long time. He's been here only seven months and the effort and results are outstanding. Setting the groundwork for future greatness, especially after the wins this year.
Bingo. Would absolutely love to have Hagan prove me/anyone else who is skeptical of his recruiting/development wrong. But even if he's confident in Mangham, seems like a questionable move to stave off the RB recruiting for an entire year even if there is only one upperclassman.
That is not how grading works. Using your statistical methodology about 85 schools will fail. That of course makes no sense whatsoever at all. It doesn’t work in a classroom either unless there is a curve set that fails 59% of all students.
Also, it doesn't account for how many players a program has committed. CU has a better class than KU right now, but we're ranked lower because of having 13 commits vs 21. Similarly, Stanford has a better class than CU but is ranked lower because they have like 8 guys committed.
What I'm getting at is that the only thing I'm looking at is average rank within the conference. We won't catch Oregon, Washington or Stanford. We'll almost certainly see USC finish well ahead of us. Looks like we are positioned to beat Cal, ASU and UA. UCLA is about where we are and it's a question mark on how they'll finish. Too early to judge anything on Utah's class since they generally take commitments later and sign the bulk of their class in February. We should finish comfortably ahead of OSU and WSU.
That projects to somewhere in the 5th-10th range this year. If we can finish top half in the conference, I'll consider it a huge improvement that sets the table for the future.
Just
win
win
J-R-K
Well-Known Member
As of right now this class is on pace to finish ranked about 45-50 nationally. And yet 84% of you graded it A/B? I assume you all were happy about back-to-back 5-7 seasons? Right? Because that’s about what this level of recruiting will lead to. There seems to be a complete disconnect between people’s expectations for the program and the quality of recruiting necessary to get there.
And this idea of “grading in a curve” is silly. You know what’s not scored on a curve? Actual games. The entire significance of recruiting is how it translates to on-field results. Duh! So when UW out recruits us ever year and then kicks our ass on the field every year it’s completely pointless to be happy about inferior recruiting simply because you’ve decided we can’t do any better.
And this idea of “grading in a curve” is silly. You know what’s not scored on a curve? Actual games. The entire significance of recruiting is how it translates to on-field results. Duh! So when UW out recruits us ever year and then kicks our ass on the field every year it’s completely pointless to be happy about inferior recruiting simply because you’ve decided we can’t do any better.
I think we're on pace to do better than that based on the improvement to the average rank of players in this class. It would be surprising if it ends up inside the Top 25 or outside the Top 50. I'll be pleased with the work done if the class ends up ranked in the 30s somewhere. I thought that was about where good recruiting would land CU at this stage of the build.
UW improved their recruiting over time, from a low when they went 1-10 in 2004 and 0-12 in 2008. It took two new coaches and eight years to get UW up to recruit enough talent to where they went 12-2 in 2016. UW went 7-6 or 8-6 in five of those eight years.
This CU class, 2020, is a clear improvement over any seen at CU in many years, the team talent is improving. A new coach and staff that hasn't even coached their first game yet and they are improving the talent, they are two years ahead of schedule. It's completely delusional to expect CU to recruit at par with UW this year, or next or the next. Duh!
J-R-K
Well-Known Member
For reference CU’s average composite score right now is 85.24. That score currently ranks #46. Last year it would have been #53 and in 2018 it would have been #49.
I gave him a B relative to the situation. Of course I expect much better in coming years.
Perkins re-committing knocked us back a bit. If we get the Mims commitment, it goes back to where I expect us to finish this year.
J-R-K
Well-Known Member
No recruiting really isn’t any better now then before; at the very least it certainly isn’t “clearly” better. Go back and look at the previous three classes.
And you seem to have completely missed my point. I never said we should be recruiting as well as UW. But considering that they and a majority of P5 schools are out recruiting us don’t simultaneously tell me this is B+ recruiting. It’s not. Grading on a curve is pointless when the “real life” implications of recruiting...actual games, are not scored on a curve.
On 24/7 Colorado ranks #40 nationally in the recruiting rankings. 5th in the Pac12.
2019 we finished at #44, 9th in the Pac12.
2018 we finished at #52, 10th in the Pac12
2017 we finished at #35, 8th in the Pac12
2016 we finished at #69, 12th in the Pac12
...
If recruiting ended today we would have our 3rd highest rated class in the past decade and our highest rating w/ regard to the Pac-12 since joining the conference.
2019 we finished at #44, 9th in the Pac12.
2018 we finished at #52, 10th in the Pac12
2017 we finished at #35, 8th in the Pac12
2016 we finished at #69, 12th in the Pac12
...
If recruiting ended today we would have our 3rd highest rated class in the past decade and our highest rating w/ regard to the Pac-12 since joining the conference.
Last edited:
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Ok....
2017 is the clear high water mark of the previous staff. So that is the only useful comparison.
This class should be clearly better than 2018 or 2019. Still not anywhere close to the "A" range (especially at certain positions), but definitely in the C+/B- range with the potential to move up or down between now and signing day.
J-R-K
Well-Known Member
Are you purposely trying to be misleading? It’s been pretty well established on here that quality is what matters. Not rankings that are partially based on how many recruits are in a class. At this current pace we’ll likely finish 45-50 nationally and about 8th in conference. Regardless, simply recruiting slightly better then we have during the past disaster of a decade really isn’t saying much.
vinniew_11
Well-Known Member
This staff hasn’t coached a down yet in black and gold. All they did was come in, filled some gaping holes quickly and then got a good start in this class and has shown a knack to grab attention of higher ranked players than we’ve seen in a long time here, yet people are already ****ting on the recruiting? You guys are impossible.
The rankings from 24/7 are based on a weighted score. So I am not sure what you're problem with that rank is.
Think what you want, but CU recruiting IS improving. The ranking in relation to our conference peers is extremely important. 5th (or better) would represent a big jump and would help us close the distance. CU can do better, and I expect HCMT to due better, but this is a good start.
DenverBuff
Douchebag
Not better than the ‘19 class before the coaching change. Not even close. We lost some serious talent at HCMT wasn’t able to get any of them back.
brockbuff
Well-Known Member
The qb that followed Roper. He was only a three star I believe. Who else was highly rated that we lost?