Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

USA Today has CU ranked as the 99th-best team in the nation

Most prognosticators use the same basic formula in their mind to predict how good a team will be. They start with "how good were they last year), they factor in "how much established talent does the team return" and "how well have they been recruiting".

Based on that, I can certainly see how they think we'll suck this year. We sucked last year (F/+ ratings had us at 88th in the nation) and we don't return a lot of our starting talent (Bill Connelly's returning prod rank has us 123rd in the nation) and we haven't recruited well over the past 5 years (57th).

Now how they have CSU at 84, I have no idea.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Most prognosticators use the same basic formula in their mind to predict how good a team will be. They start with "how good were they last year), they factor in "how much established talent does the team return" and "how well have they been recruiting".

Based on that, I can certainly see how they think we'll suck this year. We sucked last year (F/+ ratings had us at 88th in the nation) and we don't return a lot of our starting talent (Bill Connelly's returning prod rank has us 123rd in the nation) and we haven't recruited well over the past 5 years (57th).

Now how they have CSU at 84, I have no idea.
Click to expand...

I think the one thing you've gotta take into account is the schedule everybody's gonna play as well. Our OOC is tougher than LY's was because playing in Lincoln is tougher than playing Texas State at home, but we're playing four very flawed conference opponents at Folsom this year, and we could feasibly win all four of those games.

As far as this list, I'm not sure if we should take any list that has us ranked lower than CSU (MM is 5-1 against little brother in his CU tenure) and Arizona State (I don't think anybody can speak intelligently about what to expect from them)
 
By the time USA today writters get to team #35 they have a list of 2017 F/+ and then probably spend five minutes googling each team to get an idea of how to rank them for 2018.

Don't waste your attention reading - you know way more about Colorado football than they do.

My motto, never trust any ranking above about 30 in college football...no matter what it is.
 
Good. There will be plenty of bulletin board material to use this offseason.
 
From just a high level perspective, I'm not sure how a P5 team that was basically .500 last year equates to being 99th out of about 125 FBS teams. Considering 99th is about a middle of the pack (or .500) G5 team, the ranking makes no sense. As people are saying, there doesn't seem to be a lot of actual analysis going on.
 
buffedup said:
From just a high level perspective, I'm not sure how a P5 team that was basically .500 last year equates to being 99th out of about 125 FBS teams. Considering 99th is about a middle of the pack (or .500) G5 team, the ranking makes no sense. As people are saying, there doesn't seem to be a lot of actual analysis going on.
Click to expand...
We were 2-7 last year in the train wreck Pac-12 with two victories over dumpster fire Oregon St, and mediocre Cal. We won three other games against the easiest P5 out of conference schedule (CSU, Texas St, Norhtern Colorado). We were a bad team.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
We were 2-7 last year in the train wreck Pac-12 with two victories over dumpster fire Oregon St, and mediocre Cal. We won three other games against the easiest P5 out of conference schedule (CSU, Texas St, Norhtern Colorado). We were a bad team.
Click to expand...
What about all the moral victories?
 
Basic transposition error. I actually think the numbers were mistakenly switched. So the buffs should be ranked 99th instead of 99th.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
We were 2-7 last year in the train wreck Pac-12 with two victories over dumpster fire Oregon St, and mediocre Cal. We won three other games against the easiest P5 out of conference schedule (CSU, Texas St, Norhtern Colorado). We were a bad team.
Click to expand...
Fake News!
 
It's click material. They are as bored as we are and need to generate some interest in their site.

To start with putting us at 99 means there are a bunch of G5 teams ahead of us which is ridiculous.

We should be on the lower end of the P5 schools until we prove we can win on the field but even then a bunch of other P5s have been worse than us.

It is doing it's job though, it is getting people to pay attention so to them it doesn't have to be right, and in 6 months nobody will remember or care.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
We were 2-7 last year in the train wreck Pac-12 with two victories over dumpster fire Oregon St, and mediocre Cal. We won three other games against the easiest P5 out of conference schedule (CSU, Texas St, Norhtern Colorado). We were a bad team.
Click to expand...

Throw in their formulas for "key losses" show our RB and WR positions as being decimated.

They are not factoring in the carries/yards our transfer RB had at VT.
They have no clue that most fans believe the three departing WRs would have had trouble keeping their starting roles with what is coming back (me included, but hey, I was never a big fan of Ross and Fields).

Those are 4 big subtractions that we are collectively not stepping backwards with in 2018.

Offense will be decidedly better if the OL can be decent and Montez improves.
 
Silly. No way to discriminate at that level.

Wait on Phil and other more reliable models and prognosticators.
 
Duff Man said:
Does that mean I can ignore offensive and defensive rankings from last year?
Click to expand...
Pretty much, yes. All we can really say is that our D looked decent against the offenses we played in the OOC schedule and bad when we got to the P12 schedule.

We were the 109th best in total defense last year. Does that mean that UTEP (107), Old Dominion (92) and Idaho (64) had better defense than us? Nope.
 
8Jah said:
Pretty much, yes. All we can really say is that our D looked decent against the offenses we played in the OOC schedule and bad when we got to the P12 schedule.

We were the 109th best in total defense last year. Does that mean that UTEP (107), Old Dominion (92) and Idaho (64) had better defense than us? Nope.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but it is silly to say anything after 30 does not matter.

Your whole philosophy seems to center on ignoring any bad numbers.
 
Hugegroove said:
Should serve as additional motivation.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, if this team has any toughness, then all this piss poor analysis should serve as serious motivation this year!!! I do not even want to dig into any numbers from last year, because I believe that this is a new year, and even though I am not sure if we have amazing leadership, I get the sense that the collective focus and desire is higher, and that coach Mac is actually completely focused and ready to coach far better this next season. Keep piling on you ass hat writers!
 
For me as a fan this is embarrassing. Rick George better be asking himself if this is the fruit he expected to see after pumping a couple hundred million into coaches and facilities and coaches better be saying “I’m about to be kicked off the gravy train”. Consistently being at the bottom of the PAC in recruiting and results is not what we as fans or the AD should find acceptable.
 
pcbuff said:
For me as a fan this is embarrassing. Rick George better be asking himself if this is the fruit he expected to see after pumping a couple hundred million into coaches and facilities and coaches better be saying “I’m about to be kicked off the gravy train”. Consistently being at the bottom of the PAC in recruiting and results is not what we as fans or the AD should find acceptable.
Click to expand...
RG isn't an innocent bystander in all of this. He chose to extend MM after the 2016 season, but not find the funds to keep the Clark and Leavitt on board (not saying this would have been easy to do). He chose to stick with MM after last season's let down, and he will ultimately decide what direction to go in after this season, depending on the results. RG is the leader of the entire Athletic Department and is ultimately accountable for the performance of the football program. If he's not happy, go find some big time donors and sell them on the idea of the next coaching staff being big money, home run hires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top