The State of In-State Recruiting

[onealcd]

There's definitely something special about cheering for a "favorite son". It's important to have home-grown talent on CU teams. As much as I believe in signing the best talent possible every year, I also think there's a cultural element to the program that demands for there to be in-state players on the roster. I'm ok with bigger risks and reaches for in-state prospects than I am for out-of-state prospects.

It is just really hard to judge talent in Colorado so I understand coaches being hesitant. I played against both major and Harris in high school and would have bet the house that major would be an amazing player in college but guess who had the better college career between the two? Colorado needs to up the competition and attitude towards football kind of like what mcchesney does at six zero because the population base here should provide more players than it does.

 

[Buffnik]

It is just really hard to judge talent in Colorado so I understand coaches being hesitant. I played against both major and Harris in high school and would have bet the house that major would be an amazing player in college but guess who had the better college career between the two? Colorado needs to up the competition and attitude towards football kind of like what mcchesney does at six zero because the population base here should provide more players than it does.

You know what I think would make the biggest impact? If a couple Colorado junior colleges started playing football. This would be the way for locals to prove themselves at a higher level of competition. It would really only take 1, the way that Snow College does in Utah.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

You know what I think would make the biggest impact? If a couple Colorado junior colleges started playing football. This would be the way for locals to prove themselves at a higher level of competition. It would really only take 1, the way that Snow College does in Utah.

"The Red Rocks Feldspars"!!

I actually think this is a great idea, nik.

 

[absinthe]

But then we'd have offered Milo Hall (walk on at CSU who flipped to taking a scholarship at Wyoming) and Andrew Wingard (scholarship to Wyoming) from this last cycle. Great players; not P5 worthy. 2016 and 2017 cycles seem to be different, however.

that approach isnt without it's flaws I totally agree, I just think the good will it would build within the state would be worth it.

 

[MtnBuff]

There's definitely something special about cheering for a "favorite son". It's important to have home-grown talent on CU teams. As much as I believe in signing the best talent possible every year, I also think there's a cultural element to the program that demands for there to be in-state players on the roster. I'm ok with bigger risks and reaches for in-state prospects than I am for out-of-state prospects.

I don't think we can afford to take "lesser talent" just because it is in-state. Kids have to be capable of competing at the PAC12 level. What you can do with in-state players is be willing to give them a little more time to develop.

A good example of this is Isaac Miller. If/when he fully develops he has the raw size and agility to be a top flight offensive lineman in the PAC12, he just wasn't able to come in PAC12 ready like a Lynott looks to be.

The fact that he is a local kid with a great attitude makes it worth taking the extra time and risk on him.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I don't think we can afford to take "lesser talent" just because it is in-state. Kids have to be capable of competing at the PAC12 level. What you can do with in-state players is be willing to give them a little more time to develop.

A good example of this is Isaac Miller. If/when he fully develops he has the raw size and agility to be a top flight offensive lineman in the PAC12, he just wasn't able to come in PAC12 ready like a Lynott looks to be.

The fact that he is a local kid with a great attitude makes it worth taking the extra time and risk on him.

I think a guy like Parker Orms is a good example of a borderline P5 football player that is worth a scholarship offer because he's a CO kid. Yes? No?

 

[TDbuff]

I also think there's a cultural element to the program that demands for there to be in-state players on the roster. I'm ok with bigger risks and reaches for in-state prospects than I am for out-of-state prospects.

Agreed, in state kids probably won't get homesick, intrinsic loyalty and pride for the state and the program(which can permeate to the rest of the team), and helps provide a local support structure for all the out of state prospects.

We just need to start getting the kids at the very top of the ratings, instead of just a handful from the top ten.

 

[pcbuff]

We just need to start getting the kids at the very top of the ratings, instead of just a handful from the top ten.

When we demonstrate the ability to recruit four star athletes, or three star athletes wit multiple P5 offers, we will be able to get the majority of in state kids worthy of a P5 offer.

 

[BUFFS14]

I don't follow the kids who leave the state to play elsewhere. Can someone give a brief summary on the kids that have left and the impact they have had on their teams?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I don't follow the kids who leave the state to play elsewhere. Can someone give a brief summary on the kids that have left and the impact they have had on their teams?

Kenny Bell - One of the best WRs in Nebraska history. Now with the Tampa Bay Bucs.
Colin Klein - Kansas State DT QB who was a Heisman Finalist
Lendale White - One of the better RBs for USC during the Leinhart/Bush years. Played for a handful of years in the NFL.
Bo Scaife - Texas great TE. Been in the league since 2005.
Calais Campbell - Miami great. One of the best DL in the NFL.
Lamar Houston - Texas - Drafted by the Raiders/now with the Bears
Dan Skipper - Current LT for Arkansas and will be a 1st round draft pick in a few years

The list goes on and on

 

[buffaholic]

It is just really hard to judge talent in Colorado so I understand coaches being hesitant. I played against both major and Harris in high school and would have bet the house that major would be an amazing player in college but guess who had the better college career between the two? Colorado needs to up the competition and attitude towards football kind of like what mcchesney does at six zero because the population base here should provide more players than it does.

6-0 is a really good proving ground. It's hard to say how much the injuries hurt Major, but his dedication to working out was infamously well behind his dedication to some other guilty pleasures.

Six Zero is a good test run. Are you willing & able to feel the pain in the dungeon?

 

[buffaholic]

You know what I think would make the biggest impact? If a couple Colorado junior colleges started playing football. This would be the way for locals to prove themselves at a higher level of competition. It would really only take 1, the way that Snow College does in Utah.

Agree. Could play a wicked good schedule in Utah and Kansas. Some of these kids that attend in KS from far away places choose kSU precisely because of some girl they met (not to mention the $100 bill handshakes they get). Turns out that kids care more about hooking up than views of the flatirons! Who knew?

 

[BUFFS14]

Thanks, just curious year in and year out, the kids we miss on or that we don't offer, how they really preform at the final school of choice. Are we missing on one a year, 2, 3?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Thanks, just curious year in and year out, the kids we miss on or that we don't offer, how they really preform at the final school of choice. Are we missing on one a year, 2, 3?

I mean, I listed 7 guys spanning quite a ways back, so take it with a grain of salt. For every one of those guys who defect from CO and have huge impacts elsewhere, there are probably 4-5 that are JAGs at other programs.

 

[BUFFS14]

I mean, I listed 7 guys spanning quite a ways back, so take it with a grain of salt. For every one of those guys who defect from CO and have huge impacts elsewhere, there are probably 4-5 that are JAGs at other programs.

True. Its not a perfect science to know on how these kids will turn out. Colorado is not a high school football power, so its difficult to compare a kid from a large school here to say a small school in CA, FL, or TX. We have lineman guys who dominate here, but their competition is not the best all the time.

 

[DBT]

I mean, I listed 7 guys spanning quite a ways back, so take it with a grain of salt. For every one of those guys who defect from CO and have huge impacts elsewhere, there are probably 4-5 that are JAGs at other programs.

"JAGs" ?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

"JAGs" ?

"Just A Guy"... Average contributors but nothing more.

 

[DBT]

"Just A Guy"... Average contributors but nothing more.

Thx. I thought it meant Judge Advocate General. :lol:

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Thx. I thought it meant Judge Advocate General. :lol:

You can't handle the truth!

 

[Buffnik]

I don't think we can afford to take "lesser talent" just because it is in-state. Kids have to be capable of competing at the PAC12 level. What you can do with in-state players is be willing to give them a little more time to develop.

A good example of this is Isaac Miller. If/when he fully develops he has the raw size and agility to be a top flight offensive lineman in the PAC12, he just wasn't able to come in PAC12 ready like a Lynott looks to be.

The fact that he is a local kid with a great attitude makes it worth taking the extra time and risk on him.

But then there are the guys like McCartney, Coleman, etc. Don't take my post to the extreme. I don't want anyone the coaches don't think can help us win the Pac-12. However, there are a lot of guys in every cycle who can't help right away or who wouldn't project to help within 2 years but have the right frame, attitude and speed/agility to develop into the sort of player we need. Those guys are risks, though. What I'm saying is that I'm more supportive of taking those risks with in-state players and encourage the coaches to take some of those risks.

 

[MtnBuff]

But then there are the guys like McCartney, Coleman, etc. Don't take my post to the extreme. I don't want anyone the coaches don't think can help us win the Pac-12. However, there are a lot of guys in every cycle who can't help right away or who wouldn't project to help within 2 years but have the right frame, attitude and speed/agility to develop into the sort of player we need. Those guys are risks, though. What I'm saying is that I'm more supportive of taking those risks with in-state players and encourage the coaches to take some of those risks.

I think we are in agreement for the most part. You don't take a guy who you don't have a reason to think could be a contributor in the PAC12, you do take a guy who needs some time to develop into that level of player as long as he has a good attitude, is a good teammate, and isn't taking a space that could be used for a significantly better player.

Most teams end up taking some risk on players, all things equal I don't mind taking those risks in state.

In regard to TSchelker's question on Orms, he fits this description. He didn't have any other P5 level programs after him. As it turned out he was a little to small and fragile to be a standout for the Buffs but he was a great Buff effort and attitude wise. When they took him they didn't give him his slot at the expense of some blue chip standout and Orms contributed in a lot of ways for that scholly.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Orms turned out to be on par or better than the standard recruit CU was getting at the time, but I think most people here would be upset if we offered and accepted his commitment right now.

 

[BUFFS14]

I think we are in agreement for the most part. You don't take a guy who you don't have a reason to think could be a contributor in the PAC12, you do take a guy who needs some time to develop into that level of player as long as he has a good attitude, is a good teammate, and isn't taking a space that could be used for a significantly better player.

Most teams end up taking some risk on players, all things equal I don't mind taking those risks in state.

In regard to TSchelker's question on Orms, he fits this description. He didn't have any other P5 level programs after him. As it turned out he was a little to small and fragile to be a standout for the Buffs but he was a great Buff effort and attitude wise. When they took him they didn't give him his slot at the expense of some blue chip standout and Orms contributed in a lot of ways for that scholly.

I agree most teams take risks, I would rather see those risks be in state as well. I apologize if its already been said/asked but how many kids do we take risks on? Are we getting enough quality in the other recruits to constitute the risk taking, or are our offers filled with too many risks?

 

[SINKRATZ]

Orms turned out to be on par or better than the standard recruit CU was getting at the time, but I think most people here would be upset if we offered and accepted his commitment right now.

It's actually the opposite, Orms wasn't a big time recruit, but since we were already pulling in guys like Kasa and Harris in that class most people were ok taking a high energy, local kid. Back then taking a bit of s fleet on a kid like that who at worst would provide some energy and depth would have been fine - today kids like him are the majority of the class which is the problem.

 

[Buffnik]

I agree most teams take risks, I would rather see those risks be in state as well. I apologize if its already been said/asked but how many kids do we take risks on? Are we getting enough quality in the other recruits to constitute the risk taking, or are our offers filled with too many risks?

I guess how I'd answer that is that every recruit is a risk and the farther down the pecking order you get from being able to pick and choose pretty much whomever you want, the greater the risk becomes.

Within that, there's a range of risks.

MacIntyre doesn't seem to think that taking many character or academic risks is a good bet to make. He's got what he's looking for and then gets the best players he can within that. Some academic and character risks from him, but it seems a lot less than the norm. His risks are more in the realm of taking guys who aren't as far along in their physical or football development as you'd like, but have potential. Or risks in the realm of taking someone who brings a certain attitude to the team being trusted to outwork people to be successful as a player in the Pac-12.

Hawkins, by contrast, was willing to take huge risks on talent/character (talent that got rated highly but, in the end, most top programs shied away from) and then balance out the likely problems on attrition with guys who couldn't play but would be great citizens and scholars. When too many of the risk guys washed out, we got what we saw.

Embree (with EB) wanted guys with NFL dreams and the requisite physical tools and were willing to risk just about anything to get those guys into the program. Admissions didn't play ball on a lot of targets.

My belief is that MacIntyre's approach is the one most likely to work at the CU of today. It will wash out if he doesn't achieve better on-field results in order to keep being able to systematically upgrade talent within the overall parameters, but it's not going to risk attrition and bad attitudes blowing up the roster's talent like we had under Hawkins. And it's an approach that the university will actually support, unlike Embree's which was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with the way things are at CU.

 

[BUFFS14]

I guess how I'd answer that is that every recruit is a risk and the farther down the pecking order you get from being able to pick and choose pretty much whomever you want, the greater the risk becomes.

Agreed every recruit is a risk until they prove what they can do. Agreed MacIntyre's approach is the best for now at CU. I believe he is going in the right direction and doing what he can with what he has for now.
First off I don't like or agree with the star rating on recruits however do we consider a 2* with no P5 offers a risk? Or a 3* that we were their only P5 offer?

 

[HotRack]

Thx. I thought it meant Judge Advocate General. :lol:

You can't handle the truth!

You just had to set him up, didn't you, DBT?

 

[onealcd]

I guess how I'd answer that is that every recruit is a risk and the farther down the pecking order you get from being able to pick and choose pretty much whomever you want, the greater the risk becomes.

Within that, there's a range of risks.

MacIntyre doesn't seem to think that taking many character or academic risks is a good bet to make. He's got what he's looking for and then gets the best players he can within that. Some academic and character risks from him, but it seems a lot less than the norm. His risks are more in the realm of taking guys who aren't as far along in their physical or football development as you'd like, but have potential. Or risks in the realm of taking someone who brings a certain attitude to the team being trusted to outwork people to be successful as a player in the Pac-12.

Hawkins, by contrast, was willing to take huge risks on talent/character (talent that got rated highly but, in the end, most top programs shied away from) and then balance out the likely problems on attrition with guys who couldn't play but would be great citizens and scholars. When too many of the risk guys washed out, we got what we saw.

Embree (with EB) wanted guys with NFL dreams and the requisite physical tools and were willing to risk just about anything to get those guys into the program. Admissions didn't play ball on a lot of targets.

My belief is that MacIntyre's approach is the one most likely to work at the CU of today. It will wash out if he doesn't achieve better on-field results in order to keep being able to systematically upgrade talent within the overall parameters, but it's not going to risk attrition and bad attitudes blowing up the roster's talent like we had under Hawkins. And it's an approach that the university will actually support, unlike Embree's which was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with the way things are at CU.

Yes MacIntyre's approach is the better approach and it is definitely the more sustainable one he just has to close on more instate kids. I Am just of the belief that recruiting is all about relationships and he is clearly about the same thing, especially with in state high schools it just doesn't seem to be paying dividends like we expected. He has to be able to out recruit his performance/record at some point.