Deion Sanders isn't going to change unique Colorado football recruiting strategy

Deion Sanders isn't going to change his recruiting strategy for the Colorado football program as long as he is in charge in Boulder -- and that, to some, such as On SI's Emmanuel Walker, is an unfortunate thing.

"Sanders gained instant success at Jackson State by recruiting more talent than other SWAC programs had on the field through the transfer portal," Walker prefaced before saying, "Unfortunately, as long as Coach Prime is in Boulder, he will continue recruiting players with his 40/40/20 plan. The plan consists of 40 percent graduate transfers, 40 percent undergrad transfers, and 20 percent high school recruits. The harsh reality is the program will soon be known as a transfer university because college football programs are paying to keep their star players. This will leave the Buffs continuing to see no return on their investment which is a winning program."

Thus far, Sanders' strategy has been successful in bringing blue-chip recruits on board, such as Jordan Seaton, Drelon Miller, Kam Mikell, Cormani McClain, Dylan Edwards, and Omarion Miller, but he hasn't been able to build much depth behind them.

He's also already lost a third of that group with McClain and Edwards hitting the portal after their first year with the Buffs.

Deion Sanders' Colorado football recruiting strategy seen as lazy and a way to bolt Boulder the first chance he gets

With a 40-40-20 recruiting split, only 20% of the roster is let down if their coach leaves the program before their eligibility is up. The transfers understand the game more, having already left a program themselves.

Some see Sanders' strategy as a hedge against early retirement or taking another job elsewhere, as to allow his replacement the chance to rebuild the roster anew. Others see it as lazy. It's well known that Sanders doesn't go on recruiting visits to prospective recruits' homes or high schools.

Whatever people think of it, Sanders' recruiting strategy will be judged by the results on the field. Year one was an improvement over what there was before, but now the strategy will really be put to the test in year two.