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!

We overvalue recruiting way too much

buffaholic

buffaholic

Club Member
Club Member
See Kansas State.

currently #85 nationally (CU

2012 8th out of 10 in the Big12, #58 nationally (CU #36)
2011 10th out of 10 in the Big12, #68 nationally (CU #74)
2010 10th out of 10 in the Big12, #63 nationally (CU #66)
2009 10th out of 10 in the Big12, #92 nationally (CU #48)

Kansas State coaching staff is not built to recruit. They are all white haired & skinned old dudes who know their football. They know how to coach. They've adopted to the college game.

It's really a lot more important. Good coaching trumps good recruiting by a country mile.
 
White_Rabbit said:
How well do Alabama, Notre Dame, and Oregon recruit?
Click to expand...

Surprisingly UO hardly ever has a top 10 recruiting class. IMO they're one of the examples as to why a recruit's "stars" are a bit overrated. Kelly recruits for his system and since he gets the leftovers from SO Cal he has to make the best of them. I agree the recruiting "services"(rivals, 24/7, etc.) are way overvalued/hyped, but getting good kids(recruiting) to come to your school is NOT overrated IMO.
 
KSU gets a lot of JC and transfers, their best player apart from Klein is Arthur Brown a former 5 star recruit.
 
White_Rabbit said:
How well do Alabama, Notre Dame, and Oregon recruit?
Click to expand...

For the 4 years that matter for this year (Rivals):

2009
Alabama #1
Notre Dame #21
Oregon #32

2010
Alabama #5
Oregon #13
Notre Dame #14

2011
Alabama #1
Oregon #9
Notre Dame #10

2012
Alabama #1
Oregon #16
Notre Dame #20
 
White_Rabbit said:
How well do Alabama, Notre Dame, and Oregon recruit?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that Notre Dame supports buffaholic's theory that recruiting is overvalued. They always get great players (hard not to when every single game they have played for the last 15 years or so has been nationally televised), yet, this is the first time in ages that they've actually been really good. They've only been ranked in the top 20 at the end of the season 3 times in the last decade, and haven't finished in the top 10 since '93.

Another example of a team that doesn't recruit with the top teams but keeps winning is Boise St.

Coaching is far more important that recruiting.
 
KSU's Admissions Office reports to Bill Snyder. They are whores.

Klein seems like a wonderful kid but 1) we are idiots for not bringing him in under the category of "ATH", 2) he's a smart kid in Manhattan surrounded by dimwits, and 3) they might win the NC with an admissions office that relies heavily on the amount of **** on the applicant's boots.

I wish Klein went somewhere respectable after we completely whiffed, like Texas. He'd be a Christian, smarter Vince Young.
 
Bisonic said:
KSU's Admissions Office reports to Bill Snyder. They are whores.

Klein seems like a wonderful kid but 1) we are idiots for not bringing him in under the category of "ATH", 2) he's a smart kid in Manhattan surrounded by dimwits, and 3) they might win the NC with an admissions office that relies heavily on the amount of **** on the applicant's boots.

I wish Klein went somewhere respectable after we completely whiffed, like Texas. He'd be a Christian, smarter Vince Young.
Click to expand...
:wtf:
 
Buffnik said:
For the 4 years that matter for this year (Rivals):

2009
Alabama #1
Notre Dame #21
Oregon #32

2010
Alabama #5
Oregon #13
Notre Dame #14

2011
Alabama #1
Oregon #9
Notre Dame #10

2012
Alabama #1
Oregon #16
Notre Dame #20
Click to expand...

Which just goes to show that when you combine great recruiting with great coaching, you are at the top of the heap year after year. Average recruiting with great coaching means periodic runs at conference titles and BCS bowl games. Low recruiting with subpar coaching means you get to enjoy the Flatirons more because you knew there would be no bowl game and no amazing recruits by mid September.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
 
One time, a couple years ago, Colorado beat Oklahoma which proves star ratings are meaningless if you have great coaching...derp.
 
89BuffsBest said:
Actually, I think that Notre Dame supports buffaholic's theory that recruiting is overvalued. They always get great players (hard not to when every single game they have played for the last 15 years or so has been nationally televised), yet, this is the first time in ages that they've actually been really good. They've only been ranked in the top 20 at the end of the season 3 times in the last decade, and haven't finished in the top 10 since '93.

Another example of a team that doesn't recruit with the top teams but keeps winning is Boise St.

Coaching is far more important that recruiting.
Click to expand...

His point is that you can be really good with really good coaching and bad recruiting. That's not what ND is. KSU is the only aberration. Oregon may not recruit top 10 classes year in year out, but they recruit damn well.
 
:lol: I just don't even have the strength for this argument anymore.

Would you argue to me that Chip Kelly would win 10 games with CU this year?
 
Last edited:
Okay, here is my metaphor for the coach vs. recruiting/talent argument.

A team is like a canoe, made up of players. Some canoes are made with the best materials to help it glide with ease. Others are clunky, heavy, and create drag and will not glide at all.

A coach is like the strength of the paddler.

Virtually no amount of strength will power a run down, leaky, wooden canoe past a sleek fiberglass one. But if they are both sleek and fiberglass, the strength (coach) makes a huge difference.

Quality of coaching only becomes truly apparent or valuable when you are competing again relatively close levels of talent, and without that you've got nothing.
 
TimmyDUBs said:
Okay, here is my metaphor for the coach vs. recruiting/talent argument.

A team is like a canoe, made up of players. Some canoes are made with the best materials to help it glide with ease. Others are clunky, heavy, and create drag and will not glide at all.

A coach is like the strength of the paddler.

No matter how good your coach is, virtually no amount of strength will power a run down, leaky, wooden canoe past a sleek fiberglass one. But if they are both sleek and fiberglass, the strength makes a huge difference.

Quality of coaching only becomes truly apparent or valuable when you are competing again relatively close levels of talent, and without that you've got nothing.
Click to expand...

Do you believe you can ever get the winning rhythm to the strokes without first finding the bald man in the canoe?
 
buffaholic said:
See Kansas State.

currently #85 nationally (CU

2012 8th out of 10 in the Big12, #58 nationally (CU #36)
2011 10th out of 10 in the Big12, #68 nationally (CU #74)
2010 10th out of 10 in the Big12, #63 nationally (CU #66)
2009 10th out of 10 in the Big12, #92 nationally (CU #48)

Kansas State coaching staff is not built to recruit. They are all white haired & skinned old dudes who know their football. They know how to coach. They've adopted to the college game.

It's really a lot more important. Good coaching trumps good recruiting by a country mile.
Click to expand...
BS - Look at the Top 10, all those teams with the exception of K State have very good recruiting.
K State has a coach who is the best in college football at getting the most out of the least. Recruiting is very very important, and if Kansas State played in the SEC they would not be undefeated. Look at MU. They were an upper echelon Big 12 team, not conference champions, but a perennial winner, and are now an absolute bottom feeder in the SEC. If you think winning in the SEC is easy, just ask MU & Texas A&M. Snyder is a genius, and that's why K State wins, but he's in a perfect situation in Manhattan, Kansas. If you put him in Los Angeles, Athens, or Knoxville, he would not be as successful. He knows the JUCO programs in Kansas like nobody, and continually feeds off of them. He's a perfect fit in the place that he is, and I can guarantee you he would not want to go elsewhere because he knows his system is successful in a rural area like northeast Kansas. You take him out of that element, and his infrastructure no longer works. He's a great, great coach - right up there with Saban or anybody. He's an exception to the rule. Snyder can do it without blue chippers, but how many of him are around?
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
Do you believe you can ever get the winning rhythm to the strokes without first finding the bald man in the canoe?
Click to expand...
Just had this conversation with my wife last week. She had never heard that saying before - very funny!
 
Really good coaching will improve a program faster than players.

Lots of examples.

Really good recruiting without the coaching is useless.

Sure you need both to be top 10 & compete for titles.


But to go from bad to respectable, coaching is king. Recruiting will follow.
 
It's an interesting argument since I do not think CU fans have truly great recruiting up close and personal, probably in about two decades.

Why pick the exception to the rule every time? Why does it have to be one or the other?
 
all around the country every year you see coaches/teams that coach up players...It succeeds great players. This is a team sport that if every player is in position 1st off then does their assignment it will beat teams that just have a few so called *'s. Attack the ball on defense and gang tackle (wrap up). On offense do your assignment. Of course the coach has to have the play well designed in the first place, this is where CU is lacking in lot's of situations.
 
I hate that this discussion continually pops up every year. It's retarded people, retarded.
 
Obviously recruiting matters, but it is also fair to say we were outcoached against teams with inferior or equal talent (CSU, Sac State, Fresno). You need both. You need the whole package these days. Coach, recruits, facilities and commitment from the school. Right now at CU, of those four, the strongest is probably recruiting and that ain't sayin' much :cry:.
 
Unfortunately - you cannot immediately change the talent on your team. It takes quite a bit of time in football to change the talent. Coaching must therefore adapt and bring out the best in the players on the team.

I took a look at KSU's roster. They have 27 true freshmen, 14 redshirt freshmen, 27 sophomores (including redshirt), 27 juniors (including redshirts), 28 seniors.

Their starting QB signed with KSU out of high school. All of the starting WR's signed out of high school. Starting RB and starting FB were recruited out of high school. Starting TE came straight from high school. 4 out of the 5 starting OL signed straight out of high school. In other words - in their starting offense, only ONE (1) player came from JUCO.

Defense is an entirely different story. Only two wildcat starters signed with KSU out of high school. Their best defensive player was a transfer from U. of Miami.
 
Whoever said, "recruit to the system" is 100% right, in my opinion. That's the secret, at least on the offensive side of the ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top