Jump to content
Warrior10

Our Class Ranking?

Recommended Posts

So, if I'm reading that right, there is more correlation to recruiting in the same year than in previous years. Thus, would tend to show that success affects recruiting (more correlation in the same year, whose recruits have nothing to do with that year's on-field success) more than recruiting affects success (less correlation in previous years who's recruits are directly responsible for on-field success). Would that be correct (condeding your first two sentenses)?

 

Missed this question.

 

I don't think success affects recruiting more than recruiting affects success, because the correlations for recruiting rank in 2009 and 2010 (with a majority of those players seeing the field) are still pretty strong [depending on your discipline], and the difference between those correlations aren't quite statistically significant. Rather, I think that it's a virtuous cycle: for the most part, if you recruit well, you play well. If you play well, you recruit well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@FauxPelini: .@Staples Do you carry fax machines that receive faxes from 5-star high school football players

 

I don't think Nebraska accepts 5-star commits. Hahahaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL roster make up means so little for college teams. And do you really want to get into the odds of a given star player getting there? A handful of 5* and thousands of 2* and 3*

 

And right now, being pretty close to final rankings, we are 35th overall and 6th in the B1G. With a possibility of losing one of the best players to MLB, and another guy who is no lock to ever be cleared for contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that broncos graph would make me feel a lot better if we only got the best, most special 3* athletes. but something tells me they are thinly spread all across the nation.

 

not to be facetious, but are our fans always excited about our recruiting classes just because we are eternal optimists and only see the potential, not necessarily the reality? i ask because i was pretty excited about all of the buzz about this class, but after looking closer i am a little worried that it is more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that broncos graph would make me feel a lot better if we only got the best, most special 3* athletes. but something tells me they are thinly spread all across the nation.

 

not to be facetious, but are our fans always excited about our recruiting classes just because we are eternal optimists and only see the potential, not necessarily the reality? i ask because i was pretty excited about all of the buzz about this class, but after looking closer i am a little worried that it is more of the same.

This class is underrated, big time. Gates, Farmer, Keels, and Newell should all be at least 4star recruits. Harrison, if he stays, should be a 5 star. Several others could be ranked higher as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen you ask that a couple times but I guess I don't see a lot of people who think this is a really great class. If you go back two months or so when Farmer and Harrison were our only four-stars - and Harrison a question mark - there were many who were wondering why this class was so down, even compared to the previous couple classes. I think people feel better about it because we seem to have found some immediate help at probably our most thin spot (JUCO DE Keels) and picked up a couple higer-profile guys - Gates and Wilbon - and were in on a couple other high profile guys but missed out at the last minute. Plus, we are off to the best start in a long time on next year's class.

 

Sure there are a few who are really excited but I think most are pleased at what we got considering a year that didn't got as well as hoped and seemingly off the brink of a coaching change. You hope we found some under-rated guys but I don't think anyone could argue with this class being higher than that 25-30 range that we are ranked on the high end.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that broncos graph would make me feel a lot better if we only got the best, most special 3* athletes. but something tells me they are thinly spread all across the nation.

 

not to be facetious, but are our fans always excited about our recruiting classes just because we are eternal optimists and only see the potential, not necessarily the reality? i ask because i was pretty excited about all of the buzz about this class, but after looking closer i am a little worried that it is more of the same.

This class is underrated, big time. Gates, Farmer, Keels, and Newell should all be at least 4star recruits. Harrison, if he stays, should be a 5 star. Several others could be ranked higher as well.

Similar things get said every year. So either all four recruiting services are biased against us, or we are just getting sold a bill of goods. Yeah, the recruiting guys go on the radio and say that, but they almost never say anything bad about anyone. Their business involves trying to keep everyone, coaches, kids and fans all happy at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there are a few who are really excited but I think most are pleased at what we got considering a year that didn't got as well as hoped and seemingly off the brink of a coaching change. You hope we found some under-rated guys but I don't think anyone could argue with this class being higher than that 25-30 range that we are ranked on the high end.

i just felt like there was a lot of excitement in this class and was getting wrapped up in the buzz. maybe it was just excitement in the day in general.

 

i appreciate your response, i really do not follow recruiting hardly at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that broncos graph would make me feel a lot better if we only got the best, most special 3* athletes. but something tells me they are thinly spread all across the nation.

 

not to be facetious, but are our fans always excited about our recruiting classes just because we are eternal optimists and only see the potential, not necessarily the reality? i ask because i was pretty excited about all of the buzz about this class, but after looking closer i am a little worried that it is more of the same.

 

I think it's hard to see reality. We have no idea how the class is going to pan out, so I don't think we have any choice but to be eternally optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's hard to see reality. We have no idea how the class is going to pan out, so I don't think we have any choice but to be eternally optimistic.

i know. i have watched some recruits highlights, they all look like future nfl hof's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I'm reading that right, there is more correlation to recruiting in the same year than in previous years. Thus, would tend to show that success affects recruiting (more correlation in the same year, whose recruits have nothing to do with that year's on-field success) more than recruiting affects success (less correlation in previous years who's recruits are directly responsible for on-field success). Would that be correct (condeding your first two sentenses)?

Missed this question.

 

I don't think success affects recruiting more than recruiting affects success, because the correlations for recruiting rank in 2009 and 2010 (with a majority of those players seeing the field) are still pretty strong [depending on your discipline], and the difference between those correlations aren't quite statistically significant. Rather, I think that it's a virtuous cycle: for the most part, if you recruit well, you play well. If you play well, you recruit well.

I was doing some research for a slightly different question and found some interesting tidbits. I was looking at how the recruiting classes compared in the B1G since 2008 - including Nebraska over that time even though we obviously weren't in the conference the entire time. I used Rivals team rankings.

 

- Michigan had been #2 each year except for #3 in 2011. They fell to #4 this year.

- Nebraska had been #3-2-3-3 the previous four years until falling to #5 this year.

- Michigan State had been #5 for the previous four years before jumping to #2 this year.

- Minnesota has been #12 the previous two years but moved up to #8 this year.

- The other schools were either similar or all over the board.

 

There is nothing definitive about that and it is a small sample size but that is a noticeable (if unscientific) correlation indicating that recruiting improves when you do well on the field and declines when you don't. There was really no indication in recruiting that Michigan St. would suddenly be a Top 5 (in the country) team, definitely no indication that Wisconsin should have gone to the previous three Rose Bowls (they were #6-8-11-7-8 in recruiting in the conference from 08-12) or that Ohio State should have fallen on their face a couple years ago (they are basically #1 every year).

 

I'm not trying to make the case that recruiting doesn't matter - it definitely does. I just think that it tends to follow success rather than lead it. You happen to find a few gems in recruiting, get a couple breaks, win a few extra games and you start to get some better recruits and the process snowballs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Recruiting3.jpg

 

 

You lost me at this projection. That red line is more or less pulled out of thin air.

The red line is a linear extrapolation of the blue line.

 

In general, this thread should really stop trying to discuss correlation vs. causation and statistics in general. It's painfully obvious that the hard hitting analysis required to answer that question isn't offered until the graduate level pyschology courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pretty strong correlation exists, there's really no debating that.

 

Just to add further evidence to KJ's point:

 

For the 2012-2013 season, I took a look at the correlation between wins that season and recruiting rankings (total points according to Rivals) for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 [the five classes of players who were a part of the 2012-2013 season].

 

For 2008: r = .39

For 2009: r = .36

For 2010: r = .35

For 2011: r = .42

For 2012: r = .44

 

All of those are strong correlations: teams who recruit well also win more games and are ranked higher as a result. Furthermore, teams who recruited well in the past tended to recruit well in the future too; all the intercorrelations between the recruiting ranks were extraordinarily high. Not eye opening information.

Isn't r>0.6 usually considered strong correlation?

 

Depends on your discipline. To me, anything > .30 is strong.

 

BBB12, overall I agree with the overall point you're trying to make because unless someone is completely oblivious to how the world works, they can't argue against it.

 

But please tell the the discipline in which you consider an R^2 as "strong." I'm literally dying to hear what industry or company is using that in their analysis so I can drop my net worth on shorting that stock.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pretty strong correlation exists, there's really no debating that.

 

Just to add further evidence to KJ's point:

 

For the 2012-2013 season, I took a look at the correlation between wins that season and recruiting rankings (total points according to Rivals) for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 [the five classes of players who were a part of the 2012-2013 season].

 

For 2008: r = .39

For 2009: r = .36

For 2010: r = .35

For 2011: r = .42

For 2012: r = .44

 

All of those are strong correlations: teams who recruit well also win more games and are ranked higher as a result. Furthermore, teams who recruited well in the past tended to recruit well in the future too; all the intercorrelations between the recruiting ranks were extraordinarily high. Not eye opening information.

Isn't r>0.6 usually considered strong correlation?

 

Depends on your discipline. To me, anything > .30 is strong.

 

BBB12, overall I agree with the overall point you're trying to make because unless someone is completely oblivious to how the world works, they can't argue against it.

 

But please tell the the discipline in which you consider an R^2 as "strong." I'm literally dying to hear what industry or company is using that in their analysis so I can drop my net worth on shorting that stock.

 

I'm confused by your statement. Are you talking about the whole r = .40 being considered strong, or are you insinuating that I'm implying that all of these numbers actually prove anything? If it's the first, a lot of the social sciences do consider r = .40 to be a pretty strong effect, especially if it has enough power (a large enough sample). If it's the latter, then your insinuation is incorrect. I have not used causal language in any of these posts. I have not said that good recruiting causes more wins, nor have I said that winning causes good recruiting. In fact, you can't really imbue cause to anything in college football; it's impossible to randomly assign and there's no manipulation. You can't put Alabama in the crappy recruiting condition, and you can't put Wyoming in the a lot of wins condition. All you have to go on is associative relationships, which are "better than nothing." You can say that good recruiting leads to wins. You can say that a lot of wins leads to good recruiting; and I've said that I think that it is a bidirectional relationship.

 

I know that I've said nothing in this thread that should come as a surprise. I was just looking at the relationship between the two variables. A lot of people say that our recruiting rank doesn't matter, and all I'm doing (which was just adding on to KJ's point) is showing that there's a positive linear relationship between those two variables; that our recruiting rank means more than some of us would like to think.

 

That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, here's the correlation between 2012 wins and the average of the average recruit rank from Rivals for the past 5 classes: r = .42.

 

Interestingly enough, when you throw that composite into (what is probably an oversimplified) a regression model with pythagorean wins, the composite is still a significant predictor; which means [and please do correct me if I'm wrong] that there's an aspect of the composite rank that uniquely contributes to a team's success. The individual rankings didn't contribute whatsoever.

 

Recruiting services, no matter how biased we may claim them to be, actually do a good job in predicting future success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I'm reading that right, there is more correlation to recruiting in the same year than in previous years. Thus, would tend to show that success affects recruiting (more correlation in the same year, whose recruits have nothing to do with that year's on-field success) more than recruiting affects success (less correlation in previous years who's recruits are directly responsible for on-field success). Would that be correct (condeding your first two sentenses)?

Missed this question.

 

I don't think success affects recruiting more than recruiting affects success, because the correlations for recruiting rank in 2009 and 2010 (with a majority of those players seeing the field) are still pretty strong [depending on your discipline], and the difference between those correlations aren't quite statistically significant. Rather, I think that it's a virtuous cycle: for the most part, if you recruit well, you play well. If you play well, you recruit well.

I was doing some research for a slightly different question and found some interesting tidbits. I was looking at how the recruiting classes compared in the B1G since 2008 - including Nebraska over that time even though we obviously weren't in the conference the entire time. I used Rivals team rankings.

 

- Michigan had been #2 each year except for #3 in 2011. They fell to #4 this year.

- Nebraska had been #3-2-3-3 the previous four years until falling to #5 this year.

- Michigan State had been #5 for the previous four years before jumping to #2 this year.

- Minnesota has been #12 the previous two years but moved up to #8 this year.

- The other schools were either similar or all over the board.

 

There is nothing definitive about that and it is a small sample size but that is a noticeable (if unscientific) correlation indicating that recruiting improves when you do well on the field and declines when you don't. There was really no indication in recruiting that Michigan St. would suddenly be a Top 5 (in the country) team, definitely no indication that Wisconsin should have gone to the previous three Rose Bowls (they were #6-8-11-7-8 in recruiting in the conference from 08-12) or that Ohio State should have fallen on their face a couple years ago (they are basically #1 every year).

 

I'm not trying to make the case that recruiting doesn't matter - it definitely does. I just think that it tends to follow success rather than lead it. You happen to find a few gems in recruiting, get a couple breaks, win a few extra games and you start to get some better recruits and the process snowballs.

 

I tend to agree with that, but it would also help if this staff would do more recruiting during the season. This is no doubt that NU is at a disadvantage due to it's location, (which is vastly overused as a crutch by the pro Pelini crowd IMO) but it can and has been overcome before when anyone not named Solich or Pelini were head coaches. This staff has proven that they can recruit before and after the season. The problem lies when you know as a coaching staff that you have to outwork other top tier programs for the top recruits, and you just don't try, that is where the problems lay with this staff on this subject. They also have a history of not keeping in touch with the recruits that commit before the season and allow other coaches to change thier mind.

 

It all comes down to effort and if Bo wants to stay as the HC of NU, that effort on the recruiting trail needs to be raised year round by the entire staff. If they don't like it, then they are in the wrong profession. I guess what I am saying is that this staff doesn't give themselves the chance to put themselves in the position that you stated in your last sentence to get better recruits due to the lack of effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so during the whole season pelini sits on his a** while all the other universities are out recruiting ok.

 

You can keep your head in the sand all you want but the proof is in the numbers of guys we have vist during games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so during the whole season pelini sits on his a** while all the other universities are out recruiting ok.

You can keep your head in the sand all you want but the proof is in the numbers of guys we have vist during games.

How does that prove anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also have a history of not keeping in touch with the recruits that commit before the season and allow other coaches to change thier mind.

Feel free to post the statistics you have to prove this happens more to us than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm confused by your statement. Are you talking about the whole r = .40 being considered strong, or are you insinuating that I'm implying that all of these numbers actually prove anything? If it's the first, a lot of the social sciences do consider r = .40 to be a pretty strong effect, especially if it has enough power (a large enough sample). If it's the latter, then your insinuation is incorrect. I have not used causal language in any of these posts. I have not said that good recruiting causes more wins, nor have I said that winning causes good recruiting. In fact, you can't really imbue cause to anything in college football; it's impossible to randomly assign and there's no manipulation. You can't put Alabama in the crappy recruiting condition, and you can't put Wyoming in the a lot of wins condition. All you have to go on is associative relationships, which are "better than nothing." You can say that good recruiting leads to wins. You can say that a lot of wins leads to good recruiting; and I've said that I think that it is a bidirectional relationship.

 

I know that I've said nothing in this thread that should come as a surprise. I was just looking at the relationship between the two variables. A lot of people say that our recruiting rank doesn't matter, and all I'm doing (which was just adding on to KJ's point) is showing that there's a positive linear relationship between those two variables; that our recruiting rank means more than some of us would like to think.

 

That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

I was not referring to your second statement and my point is closer to the first statement. Again, I agree with what you're trying to point out, but I was honestly just curious what discipline considered r = .3 as "strong" as you stated.

 

If all those social scientists out there consider that strong, well, ok. I will take your word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also have a history of not keeping in touch with the recruits that commit before the season and allow other coaches to change thier mind.

Feel free to post the statistics you have to prove this happens more to us than anyone else.

I'll even make it easier for you (since I know you have no such statistics): Simply go through the decommits we had this year and explain why they decommitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt Nebraska's coaching staff is sitting on their collective rear during the season.

 

Just for a little light on the subject on recruiting the whole year, here is an article about the guy behind Ohio States recruiting efforts. I am sure this is the same at many other places.

 

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2014/02/33208/ohio-state-buckeyes-football-mark-pantoni-the-mastermind-behind-ohio-states-recruiting-effort

 

There is a lot of work that goes into just getting a kid to visit the campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also have a history of not keeping in touch with the recruits that commit before the season and allow other coaches to change thier mind.

Feel free to post the statistics you have to prove this happens more to us than anyone else.

I'll even make it easier for you (since I know you have no such statistics): Simply go through the decommits we had this year and explain why they decommitted.

 

I won't go as far as AF did, but Mavric, do you think the staff could put more effort into bringing kids in for OVs during the season. By my count, we had 16 uncommitted 2014 recruits come in during OV's during our home games. We are allowed 56 total throughout the entire cycle. In your opinion, would you at least like to see that number improve quite a bit, considering our game day atmosphere is generally considered our #1 selling point to recruits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused by your statement. Are you talking about the whole r = .40 being considered strong, or are you insinuating that I'm implying that all of these numbers actually prove anything? If it's the first, a lot of the social sciences do consider r = .40 to be a pretty strong effect, especially if it has enough power (a large enough sample). If it's the latter, then your insinuation is incorrect. I have not used causal language in any of these posts. I have not said that good recruiting causes more wins, nor have I said that winning causes good recruiting. In fact, you can't really imbue cause to anything in college football; it's impossible to randomly assign and there's no manipulation. You can't put Alabama in the crappy recruiting condition, and you can't put Wyoming in the a lot of wins condition. All you have to go on is associative relationships, which are "better than nothing." You can say that good recruiting leads to wins. You can say that a lot of wins leads to good recruiting; and I've said that I think that it is a bidirectional relationship.

 

I know that I've said nothing in this thread that should come as a surprise. I was just looking at the relationship between the two variables. A lot of people say that our recruiting rank doesn't matter, and all I'm doing (which was just adding on to KJ's point) is showing that there's a positive linear relationship between those two variables; that our recruiting rank means more than some of us would like to think.

 

That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Wow, you contradict yourself a couple times here.

 

First you say you can't show causal relationships. Then you say, "You can say that good recruiting leads to wins." But saying that A leads to B is causation. Maybe your use of the words "leads to" is implying more than you meant, but since you flip the relationship around in the next sentence, I can't see how else you could have meant that.

 

You're going to conclude that recruiting rank has a meaning? You said you can't determine causation. How then does a non-causal, moderately correlated statistic imply value? Even a much stronger correlation doesn't mean the relationship has "value". Like I'd bet there's a strong correlation between stadium size and number of wins.

 

You're trying very hard not to confuse causation and correlation, but I think your conclusions are muddled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also have a history of not keeping in touch with the recruits that commit before the season and allow other coaches to change thier mind.

Feel free to post the statistics you have to prove this happens more to us than anyone else.

I'll even make it easier for you (since I know you have no such statistics): Simply go through the decommits we had this year and explain why they decommitted.

 

I won't go as far as AF did, but Mavric, do you think the staff could put more effort into bringing kids in for OVs during the season. By my count, we had 16 uncommitted 2014 recruits come in during OV's during our home games. We are allowed 56 total throughout the entire cycle. In your opinion, would you at least like to see that number improve quite a bit, considering our game day atmosphere is generally considered our #1 selling point to recruits?

 

What makes you think they're not putting effort into it? Do they have direct control over when and if kids can visit? The scheduling of early games hasn't helped much in that regard either. I will also add that the administration needs to make sure they are doing everything they can to support the coaches in recruiting. Two lowly paid recruiting staff positions and access to private planes at the end of recruiting season is nice, but we can and should do more to help the coaches with what is already a difficult task.

 

How many other coaching staffs have to canvas the whole country and dig for diamonds as much as ours do? To criticize their effort when they already have to work harder than other major programs is ridiculous.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also have a history of not keeping in touch with the recruits that commit before the season and allow other coaches to change thier mind.

Feel free to post the statistics you have to prove this happens more to us than anyone else.

I'll even make it easier for you (since I know you have no such statistics): Simply go through the decommits we had this year and explain why they decommitted.

 

I won't go as far as AF did, but Mavric, do you think the staff could put more effort into bringing kids in for OVs during the season. By my count, we had 16 uncommitted 2014 recruits come in during OV's during our home games. We are allowed 56 total throughout the entire cycle. In your opinion, would you at least like to see that number improve quite a bit, considering our game day atmosphere is generally considered our #1 selling point to recruits?

 

What makes you think they're not putting effort into it? Do they have direct control over when and if kids can visit? The scheduling of early games hasn't helped much in that regard either. I will also add that the administration needs to make sure they are doing everything they can to support the coaches in recruiting. Two lowly paid recruiting staff positions and access to private planes at the end of recruiting season is nice, but we can and should do more to help the coaches with what is already a difficult task.

 

How many other coaching staffs have to canvas the whole country and dig for diamonds as much as ours do? To criticize their effort when they already have to work harder than other major programs is ridiculous.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have used that word and gone with strategic decision making. Someone asked Els "during the Wyoming game, why did you have only 3 OV's?" He said, "well we have 8 home games, so we want to spread them out a little more." That weekend went on to be one of the most highly attended weekends. That is a problem that 16 uncommitted OVs attended our home games, in 8 home games.

 

If you don't want Bo fired and think he is the right guy for the job, I'm fine with that although I don't completely agree. But even if you feel that way, you're not required to think every single thing he does is the 100% best way and he is beyond criticize and isn't allowed to be improved.

 

As far as your AD support. I just can't help but laugh at this that everyone blames SE. Bo has been HC for 6 years. 5.5 of them, TO was his AD. Now after 8 months on the job, SE is getting blamed for the last 6 years of lack of administration support. Sure, those 2 low paid recruiting jobs were just posted and may not be enough, but those are 2 MORE THAN TO OFFERED TO BO. And there are going to end up being closer to 6 or 7 for the recruiting department. That is 6 or 7 more people that EICHORST (in 8 months) made available to Bo than T.O. did in 6 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused by your statement. Are you talking about the whole r = .40 being considered strong, or are you insinuating that I'm implying that all of these numbers actually prove anything? If it's the first, a lot of the social sciences do consider r = .40 to be a pretty strong effect, especially if it has enough power (a large enough sample). If it's the latter, then your insinuation is incorrect. I have not used causal language in any of these posts. I have not said that good recruiting causes more wins, nor have I said that winning causes good recruiting. In fact, you can't really imbue cause to anything in college football; it's impossible to randomly assign and there's no manipulation. You can't put Alabama in the crappy recruiting condition, and you can't put Wyoming in the a lot of wins condition. All you have to go on is associative relationships, which are "better than nothing." You can say that good recruiting leads to wins. You can say that a lot of wins leads to good recruiting; and I've said that I think that it is a bidirectional relationship.

 

I know that I've said nothing in this thread that should come as a surprise. I was just looking at the relationship between the two variables. A lot of people say that our recruiting rank doesn't matter, and all I'm doing (which was just adding on to KJ's point) is showing that there's a positive linear relationship between those two variables; that our recruiting rank means more than some of us would like to think.

 

That is all. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Wow, you contradict yourself a couple times here.

 

First you say you can't show causal relationships. Then you say, "You can say that good recruiting leads to wins." But saying that A leads to B is causation. Maybe your use of the words "leads to" is implying more than you meant, but since you flip the relationship around in the next sentence, I can't see how else you could have meant that.

 

You're going to conclude that recruiting rank has a meaning? You said you can't determine causation. How then does a non-causal, moderately correlated statistic imply value? Even a much stronger correlation doesn't mean the relationship has "value". Like I'd bet there's a strong correlation between stadium size and number of wins.

 

You're trying very hard not to confuse causation and correlation, but I think your conclusions are muddled.

 

You can't determine causation, but you can show an associative relationship. Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly, but those two things are different. Saying recruiting ranks doesn't mean anything to me implies that there is no relationship, and that's not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't go as far as AF did, but Mavric, do you think the staff could put more effort into bringing kids in for OVs during the season. By my count, we had 16 uncommitted 2014 recruits come in during OV's during our home games. We are allowed 56 total throughout the entire cycle. In your opinion, would you at least like to see that number improve quite a bit, considering our game day atmosphere is generally considered our #1 selling point to recruits?

What are you basing your assertion that "the staff could put more effort into bringing kids in for OVs during the season"? You seem to be basing that simply on how many showed up. If you think the only variable is how much effort the coaches put in, I don't know where to start. I would absolutely like to see more but there are a lot of reasons we don't get more that fall in line before the coaches' effort.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have used that word and gone with strategic decision making. Someone asked Els "during the Wyoming game, why did you have only 3 OV's?" He said, "well we have 8 home games, so we want to spread them out a little more." That weekend went on to be one of the most highly attended weekends. That is a problem that 16 uncommitted OVs attended our home games, in 8 home games.

I believe this is what Els said that you are slightly mis-quoting and taking out of context:

 

“With the schedule these kids have, their time demands are pretty big,” Els said. “When they're able to come in, they're able to come in. We leave it up to them. Absolutely, we want them in as early as we can, but we also have eight home games, so it's not a 'Hey,-you-must-come-to-the-Wyoming-game' type of deal.”

 

Els added that the extra home game allows Nebraska to spread out its visits more instead of bringing several players at the same position in at the same time.

 

“Maybe if you have a couple guys at the same position, you can say, 'Let's bring them in a different weekend,' so they have some options,” Els said. “That's good.”

OWH Article

 

The Wyoming game was actually our lowest-attended games. IIRC, many high schools hadn't started yet so several guys couldn't visit because they aren't allowed until their senior year starts. We usually get many more visitors at the end of the season after their high school year is over because they don't have to make such a quick trip from playing a game Friday night to getting a flight first thing Saturday morning. It is much easier for schools in Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, etc. where the recruits can make a 3-4 hour drive Saturday morning. That was the case this year as our November games were much better attended and we continued to get more in December and January.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also have a history of not keeping in touch with the recruits that commit before the season and allow other coaches to change thier mind.

Feel free to post the statistics you have to prove this happens more to us than anyone else.

I'll even make it easier for you (since I know you have no such statistics): Simply go through the decommits we had this year and explain why they decommitted.

 

I won't go as far as AF did, but Mavric, do you think the staff could put more effort into bringing kids in for OVs during the season. By my count, we had 16 uncommitted 2014 recruits come in during OV's during our home games. We are allowed 56 total throughout the entire cycle. In your opinion, would you at least like to see that number improve quite a bit, considering our game day atmosphere is generally considered our #1 selling point to recruits?

 

What makes you think they're not putting effort into it? Do they have direct control over when and if kids can visit? The scheduling of early games hasn't helped much in that regard either. I will also add that the administration needs to make sure they are doing everything they can to support the coaches in recruiting. Two lowly paid recruiting staff positions and access to private planes at the end of recruiting season is nice, but we can and should do more to help the coaches with what is already a difficult task.

 

How many other coaching staffs have to canvas the whole country and dig for diamonds as much as ours do? To criticize their effort when they already have to work harder than other major programs is ridiculous.

 

Everyone outside of Florida, Texas, and California has to "canvas the whole country" as you put it. And they wouldn't have to "dig for diamonds in the rough" as you also put it if they put fourth more effort. I don't understand how anyone can defend how bad this class this deep into his tenure at NU. There is no excuse for it if you want this program to become relevant again. And we've got 3 potential non-contributors in this class as well. Stewart is an academic risk. Harrison has a good possibility of accepting a pro baseball contract. Darlington is high risk of going on a medical scholarship pending any future concussions. Everything that this staff does, they seem to be reactionary to a need. If recruiting assistants has been allowed for 2 years, then we are 2.5 years too late in requesting help. With our recruiting disadvantages, we don't have to luxury of simply working almost as hard as other programs. We have to work harder than them. Every year we hear comments through several recruits who decommit or start wavering saying that they stopped hearing from the staff. Just because we gain a commit doesn't mean we can just coast through till signing. Other teams are still recruiting them and if the other teams are the main voice they keep hearing it's not surprising that eventually they start listening to that voice. I think that's what's frustrating to me the most. It's not that they are incapable of recruiting, but that they don't put forth the effort required to get it done year round. They may not like the way things are now, but until the rules change it is what it is. Refusal to participate only means we will continue to be left behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of our recruits did we stop communicating with? What evidence do you have that our coaches "coast"?

 

And which other major schools have to recruit nationwide like we do? Be specific. Oklahoma? Schools in the south? Ohio State and Michigan? Notre Dame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of our recruits did we stop communicating with? What evidence do you have that our coaches "coast"?

 

And which other major schools have to recruit nationwide like we do? Be specific. Oklahoma? Schools in the south? Ohio State and Michigan? Notre Dame?

ND, Stanford (yes they are in CA, but they do recruit nationally more than many) Oregon to start. The there is the who 'does' and who 'should' which is not necessarily the same group. Most schools have to leave their home state to fill a recruiting class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of coarse there are other schools that recruit nationally, most all of them do. Take a look at the top 10-15 teams in the recruiting rankings and then look at the recruits and notice where they are from in comparison to where the school is. Location is a BIG part in how you recruit and how well you recruit. I believe last year we traveled more miles then anyone else trying to recruit. You don't do that with a lack of effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting isn't working for some reason. AFHusker, post #85.

 

So many freaking things wrong with this its obvious why no one has come after you for it. Can you please, PLEASE tell me just how bad this class is? I mean, it's a terrible class right? Based on a star rating that an analyst gave a kid. Have you watched any film, at all? Please, give it a try. Then, let's have a rational discussion prospect by prospect about weaknesses you see that make this class so terribly weak. Because, if you had watched film, you'd have seen:

1) We have a great QB class. Darlington is medically cleared and AJ Bush is just a freak athlete that can be moved around (I mean, not that you'd know that if you hadn't watched his film).

2) Larenzo Stewart (who does have an academic risk but has said he will make it) comes into the B1G as the fastest dude in the league from day one. Everyone wants speed, right? Speed kills and we don't have any because we aren't in the SEC? Then you have Wilbon who is your coveted 4 star and so I won't go there.

3) We have possibly the most athletic WR in the country in Monte Harrison who, according to recent reports, is now leaning towards playing football instead of the MLB. Pierson-El? Watch film. Drool. Repeat. Jariah Tolbert, big body with pretty impressive hands, perfect replacement for Q. Glenn Irons is exactly what this return game has been missing if it translates.

4) TE is the one weak spot in the class, although I really like Freedom. Maybe projects better to the defense side, but oh well. Get over it.

5) OL - Watch film. Drool. Repeat. For an interesting counter to these star gazers, please read the OWH article about Tanner Farmer on Signing Day. Went from a low 3-star player to a top 5 OL in the 2014 class. I bet he just got better, right? No, stars are done off of camps. Quote I liked, by Farmer's dad after Tanner had attended a few camps and saw a huge boost in ratings : "It's not like he's any different, I swear. Just went out to a few camps and proved himself." Throw in Gates and Foster and Stoltenberg and I have no reason to see you complaining.

6) DL - Great haul. It's been hashed out so many times on this forum I won't go over it again. Very pleased with the haul here.

7) LB - Only needed 1. It sure sucks we only got a low 3-star player though. :facepalm: Film please. Tell me you'd like to be steamrolled by Mr. Walton.

8) DB - Trai and Chris Jones are very, very underrated prospects. Trai, our 3-star CB, has NFL athleticism per NFL WR's. Throw in Mr. Kalu and Cockerell and I don't see what you're complaining about.

9 ST - Got a great, legacy kicker.

 

Now, if you'd like to watch some film and get back to me, I'd be more than happy to hash this out in a rational, fact-based discussion. Ignoring star ratings.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting isn't working for some reason. AFHusker, post #85.

 

So many freaking things wrong with this its obvious why no one has come after you for it. Can you please, PLEASE tell me just how bad this class is? I mean, it's a terrible class right? Based on a star rating that an analyst gave a kid. Have you watched any film, at all? Please, give it a try. Then, let's have a rational discussion prospect by prospect about weaknesses you see that make this class so terribly weak. Because, if you had watched film, you'd have seen:

1) We have a great QB class. Darlington is medically cleared and AJ Bush is just a freak athlete that can be moved around (I mean, not that you'd know that if you hadn't watched his film).

2) Larenzo Stewart (who does have an academic risk but has said he will make it) comes into the B1G as the fastest dude in the league from day one. Everyone wants speed, right? Speed kills and we don't have any because we aren't in the SEC? Then you have Wilbon who is your coveted 4 star and so I won't go there.

3) We have possibly the most athletic WR in the country in Monte Harrison who, according to recent reports, is now leaning towards playing football instead of the MLB. Pierson-El? Watch film. Drool. Repeat. Jariah Tolbert, big body with pretty impressive hands, perfect replacement for Q. Glenn Irons is exactly what this return game has been missing if it translates.

4) TE is the one weak spot in the class, although I really like Freedom. Maybe projects better to the defense side, but oh well. Get over it.

5) OL - Watch film. Drool. Repeat. For an interesting counter to these star gazers, please read the OWH article about Tanner Farmer on Signing Day. Went from a low 3-star player to a top 5 OL in the 2014 class. I bet he just got better, right? No, stars are done off of camps. Quote I liked, by Farmer's dad after Tanner had attended a few camps and saw a huge boost in ratings : "It's not like he's any different, I swear. Just went out to a few camps and proved himself." Throw in Gates and Foster and Stoltenberg and I have no reason to see you complaining.

6) DL - Great haul. It's been hashed out so many times on this forum I won't go over it again. Very pleased with the haul here.

7) LB - Only needed 1. It sure sucks we only got a low 3-star player though. :facepalm: Film please. Tell me you'd like to be steamrolled by Mr. Walton.

8) DB - Trai and Chris Jones are very, very underrated prospects. Trai, our 3-star CB, has NFL athleticism per NFL WR's. Throw in Mr. Kalu and Cockerell and I don't see what you're complaining about.

9 ST - Got a great, legacy kicker.

 

Now, if you'd like to watch some film and get back to me, I'd be more than happy to hash this out in a rational, fact-based discussion. Ignoring star ratings.

Ignore star ratings and rely completely on the hard-hitting analysis of "OH HE'S GREAT, HE'S A GREAT GREAT PLAYER, I DROOL WHEN I WATCH HIM YOU'RE DUMB FOR NOT THINKING THAT HAHA!".

 

cle1.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol @ KJ, as usual. I didn't say take my word for it. I said watch film. Try it. I threw out my opinion after watching film, take it or leave it. Not going to hurt my feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching film certainly has value. That said, virtually every player who gets a scholly at a major conference school will look good (to varying degrees) on film. And... if you look only at the film of the guys we got --- without comparing the film to the guys say that MSU, Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin, and Penn State (and the rest of the conference) got --- then you really cannot say whether this class stacks up with the other schools or not.

 

To say that this NU class is better than 5th or 6th best in the conference based on film, you would have to see the film of 12 programs X 20 players per program = ca. watching and comparing and contrasting 240 sets of film. Or...

 

you take at face value what people (at Rivals, at 247, at Scout, etc.) who actually did do the comparative film study say.

 

So... watch the film of the NU players... sure. But that will say nothing about how the class stacks up to the rest of the conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument I was addressing wasn't about how the class stacks up. It was about the statement that this class was weak and the comments about reaching, which I really don't think we did much of this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see this discussed anywhere so my bad if its already been discussed but what does Michigan have that NE doesn't? How do they consistently get top 25 recruiting classes every year? More talent in the surrounding areas? Slightly better location? :dunno I just don't see how they pull in such highly ranked classes every year, when to me it seems they have a lot of the same recruiting disadvantages we do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument I was addressing wasn't about how the class stacks up. It was about the statement that this class was weak and the comments about reaching, which I really don't think we did much of this year.

 

 

ahh. Makes sense. That said, even for the argument you were addressing, watching the film of the players is doubtless better than not... but still not overly able to equip us to know one way or another about whether it is a weak class or a stretch (or whether it is not). Again, everyone looks pretty good on film. And one never knows how film against so many different levels of competition translates to what kids will do once here. Your point though is very well taken... we cannot reasonably assert that this is a weak class (or a strong one) yet in any absolute sense. In few years perhaps we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see this discussed anywhere so my bad if its already been discussed but what does Michigan have that NE doesn't? How do they consistently get top 25 recruiting classes every year? More talent in the surrounding areas? Slightly better location? :dunno I just don't see how they pull in such highly ranked classes every year, when to me it seems they have a lot of the same recruiting disadvantages we do

Populations of state and border states as of 2013:

 

Michigan - 9.9M

Wisconsin - 5.7M

Illinois - 12.8M

Indiana - 6.5M

Ohio - 11.5M

TOTAL - 46.4M

 

Nebraska - 1.8M

Colorado - 5.2M

Wyoming - 0.5M

S Dakota - 0.8M

Iowa - 3.1M

Missouri - 6.0M

Kansas - 2.9M

TOTAL - 20.3

 

So over double the population in surrounding states. 25% of Nebraska'a total is Colorado which doesn't exactly crank out football players. And Pennsylvania is just around the corner for Michigan which adds another 12.7M which would basically give Michigan three times the population base. I think that's a lot of it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see this discussed anywhere so my bad if its already been discussed but what does Michigan have that NE doesn't? How do they consistently get top 25 recruiting classes every year? More talent in the surrounding areas? Slightly better location? :dunno I just don't see how they pull in such highly ranked classes every year, when to me it seems they have a lot of the same recruiting disadvantages we do

Populations of state and border states as of 2013:

 

Michigan - 9.9M

Wisconsin - 5.7M

Illinois - 12.8M

Indiana - 6.5M

Ohio - 11.5M

TOTAL - 46.4M

 

Nebraska - 1.8M

Colorado - 5.2M

Wyoming - 0.5M

S Dakota - 0.8M

Iowa - 3.1M

Missouri - 6.0M

Kansas - 2.9M

TOTAL - 20.3

 

So over double the population in surrounding states. 25% of Nebraska'a total is Colorado which doesn't exactly crank out football players. And Pennsylvania is just around the corner for Michigan which adds another 12.7M which would basically give Michigan three times the population base. I think that's a lot of it.

 

outstanding point. It is tough to consistently draw recruits whose families will have a tough time traveling to see their son play. Not only does Michigan have ca. 3X the population to draw from, two others things may play in as well --- those states bordering Michigan are distributed towards more of an urban setting where football, generally, is more emphasized (I'd guess that more D1 athletes per capita are generated in the near Michigan states than in the near Nebraska states --- probably more like 8 to 1 vs. just population differential at 3 to 1) and... the travel time for families to get there geographically to see their son is more favorable (probably cheaper too).

 

It is much easier to recruit at Michigan than at NU... a numbers game. The whole of the conference has, to varying degrees, these same advantages over NU (or nearly the whole conference with Iowa being somewhat comparable --- but even they have an advantage somewhat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see this discussed anywhere so my bad if its already been discussed but what does Michigan have that NE doesn't? How do they consistently get top 25 recruiting classes every year? More talent in the surrounding areas? Slightly better location? :dunno I just don't see how they pull in such highly ranked classes every year, when to me it seems they have a lot of the same recruiting disadvantages we do

Populations of state and border states as of 2013:

 

Michigan - 9.9M

Wisconsin - 5.7M

Illinois - 12.8M

Indiana - 6.5M

Ohio - 11.5M

TOTAL - 46.4M

 

Nebraska - 1.8M

Colorado - 5.2M

Wyoming - 0.5M

S Dakota - 0.8M

Iowa - 3.1M

Missouri - 6.0M

Kansas - 2.9M

TOTAL - 20.3

 

So over double the population in surrounding states. 25% of Nebraska'a total is Colorado which doesn't exactly crank out football players. And Pennsylvania is just around the corner for Michigan which adds another 12.7M which would basically give Michigan three times the population base. I think that's a lot of it.

+1 That makes sense. Figured it was probably something like that but didn't realize it was such a large gap in surrounding population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoting isn't working for some reason. AFHusker, post #85.

 

So many freaking things wrong with this its obvious why no one has come after you for it. Can you please, PLEASE tell me just how bad this class is? I mean, it's a terrible class right? Based on a star rating that an analyst gave a kid. Have you watched any film, at all? Please, give it a try. Then, let's have a rational discussion prospect by prospect about weaknesses you see that make this class so terribly weak. Because, if you had watched film, you'd have seen:

1) We have a great QB class. Darlington is medically cleared and AJ Bush is just a freak athlete that can be moved around (I mean, not that you'd know that if you hadn't watched his film).

2) Larenzo Stewart (who does have an academic risk but has said he will make it) comes into the B1G as the fastest dude in the league from day one. Everyone wants speed, right? Speed kills and we don't have any because we aren't in the SEC? Then you have Wilbon who is your coveted 4 star and so I won't go there.

3) We have possibly the most athletic WR in the country in Monte Harrison who, according to recent reports, is now leaning towards playing football instead of the MLB. Pierson-El? Watch film. Drool. Repeat. Jariah Tolbert, big body with pretty impressive hands, perfect replacement for Q. Glenn Irons is exactly what this return game has been missing if it translates.

4) TE is the one weak spot in the class, although I really like Freedom. Maybe projects better to the defense side, but oh well. Get over it.

5) OL - Watch film. Drool. Repeat. For an interesting counter to these star gazers, please read the OWH article about Tanner Farmer on Signing Day. Went from a low 3-star player to a top 5 OL in the 2014 class. I bet he just got better, right? No, stars are done off of camps. Quote I liked, by Farmer's dad after Tanner had attended a few camps and saw a huge boost in ratings : "It's not like he's any different, I swear. Just went out to a few camps and proved himself." Throw in Gates and Foster and Stoltenberg and I have no reason to see you complaining.

6) DL - Great haul. It's been hashed out so many times on this forum I won't go over it again. Very pleased with the haul here.

7) LB - Only needed 1. It sure sucks we only got a low 3-star player though. :facepalm: Film please. Tell me you'd like to be steamrolled by Mr. Walton.

8) DB - Trai and Chris Jones are very, very underrated prospects. Trai, our 3-star CB, has NFL athleticism per NFL WR's. Throw in Mr. Kalu and Cockerell and I don't see what you're complaining about.

9 ST - Got a great, legacy kicker.

 

Now, if you'd like to watch some film and get back to me, I'd be more than happy to hash this out in a rational, fact-based discussion. Ignoring star ratings.

Ignore star ratings and rely completely on the hard-hitting analysis of "OH HE'S GREAT, HE'S A GREAT GREAT PLAYER, I DROOL WHEN I WATCH HIM YOU'RE DUMB FOR NOT THINKING THAT HAHA!".

 

cle1.jpg

Another dynamite contribution from kj

Lol @ KJ, as usual. I didn't say take my word for it. I said watch film. Try it. I threw out my opinion after watching film, take it or leave it. Not going to hurt my feelings.

It's hard not to agree with KJ. Recruiting rankings actually do tend to predict results. Dang near all D1 prospects look good on film, I would imagine you could watch the film of the Purdue, Colorado and Wake Forest recruits and come to the same conclusion. The fans of their recruiting classes probably say the exact same thing. "Our guy should be rated higher, if only Michigan/Oregon/Florida State offered, he'd be easily a 4*" or "It's a good thing those guys from Ohio State/USC/Virginia Tech didn't come offer after showing some initial interest, he is a very underrated 2*/3* kid".

 

In addition, many of our 'under the radar recruits' (guys like King, Jones, Irons and Tolbert, in addition to others) are located in area's that are routinely examined and recruited for every last drop of talent that can be found. The schools in the SEC, ACC and Big 12 s by and large decided that these kids aren't worth a spot on their roster even though they were inevitably noticed and identified. It's not like Tolbert and Irons didn't play in front of many scouts because the talent on their teams were enormous. Unless Bo and his staff saw something that those dozen or so other schools didn't, I'm gonna have to say that they are a pass.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×