Site Rankings of 2017 Class

[BuffNut99]

So, in other words, you have to drink a ton of alcohol to "sign a 2*."

 

[jizzrag85]

Here is what is funny about your post - both Rivals and Scout had Miller as a 4 star recruit. People can always cherry pick data but Miller was a highly regarded recruit.

lol condescension at its finest. I checked one website but you go ahead and pat yourself on the back smart guy.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

Huh. I always thought it was a hair's breadth.

I thought it was a C-Units hair.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

Welp, back to devouring our own during the off season.

 

[JOEinDenver]

An underated 3-4 star is a better recruit than an overrated 4-5 star recruit!

 

[Fight CU]

Can someone please break something down for me? How many in this class came from 2 parent homes?

 

[Duck Dog]

I'm loving where we are headed with recruiting and as a program in general. I was lucky enough to be at CU for two national championship appearances. Ironically, I don't long to do that again and be today's Alabama. There just seems to be too much other junk you need to accept to get to that level.

When we were down, I was just hoping we get get back to the success of say, Wisconsin or someone similar. Consistent 8-9 win seasons and every few years, we make a little run at it and win 10+ games. And we do it the right way and stay out of the scandal tabloids.

I think we are on our way.

 

[DBT]

To put this a different way, think of the way we sometimes rate how attractive someone is.

"The Star System... from a different point of view"

A "10" is like a 5*. Not too many of them out there. And there's not gonna be a lot of disagreement.

A 4* is like someone we'd give an "8" or "9". A bit more agreement here than with those we rate lower, too. Some people may think a "9" is a "10" and some may think an "8" is more of a "7". Regardless, it's still not representing a big percentage of the population and we mostly agree that they're all really attractive.

Now, a 3*... that's a lot of people. Everyone we'd rate a "7" (which, as we covered, some will think is an "8") all the way down to a "4" (which some will see as a "3" or not think is even worth bothering to rate). There's a world of difference between a "7" and a "4". To Duff's point -- telling me a "4" and a "7" is the same or pretending to in order to fit your argument is total bull****.

When we get to 2*, we're talking the range from a "1" to a "3" and we really don't want to spend much time splitting those hairs. So we're going to miss some here that might just need to get a new haircut, some skin cream and a diet & exercise plan to transform into a "7" or "8" within a couple years of putting that work in.

Last, we have the 0* which are simply unrated and would be a "0" or "TBD" on our attractiveness scale. We haven't seen them ourselves, know that there's some interest in them, but we haven't gotten enough 2nd hand reports from people whose opinions we trust to make us throw out a 2* (1-3) or 3* (4-7) rating for completeness sake of our attractiveness database.

Don't the "0's" walk on at, like, Albertus Magnus or Gustavas Adolphus or something?

 

[BUffsNation]

Back up to #25 on ESPN with the last couple of gets. That is with 27 of our 28 commits.

 

[somebody]

This morning shows us at ESPN #27, down 2 spots, and showing 28 commits.

 

[BUffsNation]

lol. ESPN is drunk

 

[CVBuff]

Last night ESPN showed CU as 25 on one list and 27 on another. Not a huge surprise from ESPN.