Offer Lists Observation

[Landlord]

A number of people are still unimpressed with our class.

 

A number of other people are responding, "Forget the ranking - look at the offer lists."

 

So let's do that. Below, I have compiled a list of the teams that finished last season in the Top 25, minus UCF and Louisville, and with the addition of a few power programs that had tough years, such as Georgia, Michigan, Florida and Texas. Next to the team name, I put the number of our commits that that team had offered and recruited. That means for each number you see, we beat that respective school that many times.

 

These numbers are not cumulative - that is, if Bama and Wisconsin both offered a kid, then two separate tally marks will show up. It's just to show how many of our players are also being offered and pursued by other top programs:

 

Team | No. of our commits they recruited

 

Florida State | 2

Auburn | 2

Michigan State | 3

South Carolina | 2

Missouri | 6

Oklahoma | 2

Alabama | 3

Clemson | 2

Oregon | 2

Stanford | 0

Ohio State | 2

Baylor | 4

LSU | 4

UCLA | 3

Oklahoma State | 1

Texas A&M | 2

USC | 2

Notre Dame | 0

Arizona State | 4

WIsconsin | 3

Georgia | 2

Michigan | 2

Florida | 0

Miami | 0

Texas | 2

 

 

 

Make of it what you will.

[Count 'Bility]

Recruiting has improved over the last what is now 3 cycles. Pretty obvious. Dont see how anyone can argue otherwise. The issue is on the field There's issues there that have alway been there that havent really changed, regardless of injuries, inexperience, conference change etc. There are very fixable issues that keep popping up that frankly are in regards to simple basics of football. We'll be sitting pretty if them necessary changes are made. If not, groundhog day will continue.

[robsker]

Recruiting has improved over the last what is now 3 cycles. Pretty obvious. Dont see how anyone can argue otherwise. The issue is on the field There's issues there that have alway been there that havent really changed, regardless of injuries, inexperience, conference change etc. There are very fixable issues that keep popping up that frankly are in regards to simple basics of football. We'll be sitting pretty if them necessary changes are made. If not, groundhog day will continue.

 

There are three options re: your statement that recruiting has improved over the last three cycles. Option #1 is to agree. Which I cannot do fully... but maybe somewhat (just an impression). Option #2 is to disagree. That I cannot do. Option #3 is to confess that we do not really know one way or another because there are too many variables and there is not enough data to really concretely say anything. That is the most reasonable response. We just do not know in any definitive way whether a meaningful improvement (or any meaningful regression) is in view.

 

If a gun were put to my head and I had to commit, I would say that perhaps the past two classes are perhaps better than the earlier ones. This class, maybe not so much. That said, we just do not know.

[The King]

A number of people are still unimpressed with our class.

 

A number of other people are responding, "Forget the ranking - look at the offer lists."

 

So let's do that. Below, I have compiled a list of the teams that finished last season in the Top 25, minus UCF and Louisville, and with the addition of a few power programs that had tough years, such as Georgia, Michigan, Florida and Texas. Next to the team name, I put the number of our commits that that team had offered and recruited. That means for each number you see, we beat that respective school that many times.

 

These numbers are not cumulative - that is, if Bama and Wisconsin both offered a kid, then two separate tally marks will show up. It's just to show how many of our players are also being offered and pursued by other top programs:

 

Team | No. of our commits they recruited

 

Florida State | 2

Auburn | 2

Michigan State | 3

South Carolina | 2

Missouri | 6

Oklahoma | 2

Alabama | 3

Clemson | 2

Oregon | 2

Stanford | 0

Ohio State | 2

Baylor | 4

LSU | 4

UCLA | 3

Oklahoma State | 1

Texas A&M | 2

USC | 2

Notre Dame | 0

Arizona State | 4

WIsconsin | 3

Georgia | 2

Michigan | 2

Florida | 0

Miami | 0

Texas | 2

 

 

 

Make of it what you will.

 

Texas will regret Mosley soon, imo...

 

It also takes a moron not to realize that we've thrown together a pretty good class.

[RedSavage]

Recruiting has improved over the last what is now 3 cycles. Pretty obvious. Dont see how anyone can argue otherwise. The issue is on the field There's issues there that have alway been there that havent really changed, regardless of injuries, inexperience, conference change etc. There are very fixable issues that keep popping up that frankly are in regards to simple basics of football. We'll be sitting pretty if them necessary changes are made. If not, groundhog day will continue.

 

There are three options re: your statement that recruiting has improved over the last three cycles. Option #1 is to agree. Which I cannot do fully... but maybe somewhat (just an impression). Option #2 is to disagree. That I cannot do. Option #3 is to confess that we do not really know one way or another because there are too many variables and there is not enough data to really concretely say anything. That is the most reasonable response. We just do not know in any definitive way whether a meaningful improvement (or any meaningful regression) is in view.

 

If a gun were put to my head and I had to commit, I would say that perhaps the past two classes are perhaps better than the earlier ones. This class, maybe not so much. That said, we just do not know.

You're right, we don't know at this point. It is too early to tell and the jury is still out. What we do know though, is that the last 2-3 classes are far more athletic than previous classes. This is not a bash on previous players but the guys out on the field on defense last year were clearly more athletically gifted than those on the field in '10, '11 and '12. That is something I don't think anybody can argue. This is what brings people to the point of saying recruiting has improved. We haven't seen any of the players from this last cycle yet but again, I think most would venture to say they look to be more athletically gifted than '10, '11, '12. If you are getting players who are more athletically gifted than in previous years, wouldn't that be considered an improvement?

[robsker]

Recruiting has improved over the last what is now 3 cycles. Pretty obvious. Dont see how anyone can argue otherwise. The issue is on the field There's issues there that have alway been there that havent really changed, regardless of injuries, inexperience, conference change etc. There are very fixable issues that keep popping up that frankly are in regards to simple basics of football. We'll be sitting pretty if them necessary changes are made. If not, groundhog day will continue.

 

There are three options re: your statement that recruiting has improved over the last three cycles. Option #1 is to agree. Which I cannot do fully... but maybe somewhat (just an impression). Option #2 is to disagree. That I cannot do. Option #3 is to confess that we do not really know one way or another because there are too many variables and there is not enough data to really concretely say anything. That is the most reasonable response. We just do not know in any definitive way whether a meaningful improvement (or any meaningful regression) is in view.

 

If a gun were put to my head and I had to commit, I would say that perhaps the past two classes are perhaps better than the earlier ones. This class, maybe not so much. That said, we just do not know.

You're right, we don't know at this point. It is too early to tell and the jury is still out. What we do know though, is that the last 2-3 classes are far more athletic than previous classes. This is not a bash on previous players but the guys out on the field on defense last year were clearly more athletically gifted than those on the field in '10, '11 and '12. That is something I don't think anybody can argue. This is what brings people to the point of saying recruiting has improved. We haven't seen any of the players from this last cycle yet but again, I think most would venture to say they look to be more athletically gifted than '10, '11, '12. If you are getting players who are more athletically gifted than in previous years, wouldn't that be considered an improvement?

 

I think that would be considered an improvement --- at least in the area of athleticism. That is why I hedge in the direction of saying recruiting the past two years probably has improved somewhat... but like you say, only time will tell. As for the current class... we do not really know anything yet... even in terms of athleticism. So... we will see.

[wiuhusker]

Recruiting has improved over the last what is now 3 cycles. Pretty obvious. Dont see how anyone can argue otherwise. The issue is on the field There's issues there that have alway been there that havent really changed, regardless of injuries, inexperience, conference change etc. There are very fixable issues that keep popping up that frankly are in regards to simple basics of football. We'll be sitting pretty if them necessary changes are made. If not, groundhog day will continue.

 

There are three options re: your statement that recruiting has improved over the last three cycles. Option #1 is to agree. Which I cannot do fully... but maybe somewhat (just an impression). Option #2 is to disagree. That I cannot do. Option #3 is to confess that we do not really know one way or another because there are too many variables and there is not enough data to really concretely say anything. That is the most reasonable response. We just do not know in any definitive way whether a meaningful improvement (or any meaningful regression) is in view.

 

If a gun were put to my head and I had to commit, I would say that perhaps the past two classes are perhaps better than the earlier ones. This class, maybe not so much. That said, we just do not know.

You're right, we don't know at this point. It is too early to tell and the jury is still out. What we do know though, is that the last 2-3 classes are far more athletic than previous classes. This is not a bash on previous players but the guys out on the field on defense last year were clearly more athletically gifted than those on the field in '10, '11 and '12. That is something I don't think anybody can argue. This is what brings people to the point of saying recruiting has improved. We haven't seen any of the players from this last cycle yet but again, I think most would venture to say they look to be more athletically gifted than '10, '11, '12. If you are getting players who are more athletically gifted than in previous years, wouldn't that be considered an improvement?

Not to agree or disagree with the bolded part, but couldn't you say that about CFB in general? From my assumption athletes are becoming more and more athletic every year coming out of HS.

[Mavric]

I think that would be considered an improvement --- at least in the area of athleticism. That is why I hedge in the direction of saying recruiting the past two years probably has improved somewhat... but like you say, only time will tell. As for the current class... we do not really know anything yet... even in terms of athleticism. So... we will see.

As to the entire classes, we're still seeing what we have. But considering the 2012 class includes Cross, Janovich, Curry, Armstrong, Moore, Westerkamp, McMullen, Valentine, Rose and Alexander while the 2013 class includes Newby, Carter, Collins, Maurice, Banderas and Gerry, all of whom played significant roles over the last two years and have generally played well, we have a pretty good idea about a large chunk of the last two classes.

[huKSer]

Notre Dame | 0

 

Thank god.

 

(pun intended)

[Dr. Strangelove]

A number of people are still unimpressed with our class.

 

A number of other people are responding, "Forget the ranking - look at the offer lists."

 

So let's do that. Below, I have compiled a list of the teams that finished last season in the Top 25, minus UCF and Louisville, and with the addition of a few power programs that had tough years, such as Georgia, Michigan, Florida and Texas. Next to the team name, I put the number of our commits that that team had offered and recruited. That means for each number you see, we beat that respective school that many times.

 

These numbers are not cumulative - that is, if Bama and Wisconsin both offered a kid, then two separate tally marks will show up. It's just to show how many of our players are also being offered and pursued by other top programs:

 

Team | No. of our commits they recruited

 

Florida State | 2

Auburn | 2

Michigan State | 3

South Carolina | 2

Missouri | 6

Oklahoma | 2

Alabama | 3

Clemson | 2

Oregon | 2

Stanford | 0

Ohio State | 2

Baylor | 4

LSU | 4

UCLA | 3

Oklahoma State | 1

Texas A&M | 2

USC | 2

Notre Dame | 0

Arizona State | 4

WIsconsin | 3

Georgia | 2

Michigan | 2

Florida | 0

Miami | 0

Texas | 2

 

 

 

Make of it what you will.

I think it would be interesting to see what this list looks like when you take off a few guys. Chances are guys like Newell, Gates, and Foster account for a large number of those offers.

 

Take the bottom 18 (about 2/3) of our class, throw out the top and see what that looks like. Ultimately I think this recruiting cycle did a great job of addressing our Lines (especially O-Line) with great recruits and is top heavy. The bottom of our class, however, isn't as impressive from an offer list standpoint.

[Mavric]

I think it would be interesting to see what this list looks like when you take off a few guys. Chances are guys like Newell, Gates, and Foster account for a large number of those offers.

 

Take the bottom 18 (about 2/3) of our class, throw out the top and see what that looks like. Ultimately I think this recruiting cycle did a great job of addressing our Lines (especially O-Line) with great recruits and is top heavy. The bottom of our class, however, isn't as impressive from an offer list standpoint.

So you're wondering what the class would look like if you take away several of the best players? Yeah, pretty sure most classes wouldn't be as good under those circumstances.

[dylan]

That always bothers me in game summaries, too. "If you take away his two 50 yard runs, they only ran for..."

[kozzman555]

A number of people are still unimpressed with our class.

 

A number of other people are responding, "Forget the ranking - look at the offer lists."

 

So let's do that. Below, I have compiled a list of the teams that finished last season in the Top 25, minus UCF and Louisville, and with the addition of a few power programs that had tough years, such as Georgia, Michigan, Florida and Texas. Next to the team name, I put the number of our commits that that team had offered and recruited. That means for each number you see, we beat that respective school that many times.

 

These numbers are not cumulative - that is, if Bama and Wisconsin both offered a kid, then two separate tally marks will show up. It's just to show how many of our players are also being offered and pursued by other top programs:

 

Team | No. of our commits they recruited

 

Florida State | 2

Auburn | 2

Michigan State | 3

South Carolina | 2

Missouri | 6

Oklahoma | 2

Alabama | 3

Clemson | 2

Oregon | 2

Stanford | 0

Ohio State | 2

Baylor | 4

LSU | 4

UCLA | 3

Oklahoma State | 1

Texas A&M | 2

USC | 2

Notre Dame | 0

Arizona State | 4

WIsconsin | 3

Georgia | 2

Michigan | 2

Florida | 0

Miami | 0

Texas | 2

 

 

 

Make of it what you will.

I think it would be interesting to see what this list looks like when you take off a few guys. Chances are guys like Newell, Gates, and Foster account for a large number of those offers.

 

Take the bottom 18 (about 2/3) of our class, throw out the top and see what that looks like. Ultimately I think this recruiting cycle did a great job of addressing our Lines (especially O-Line) with great recruits and is top heavy. The bottom of our class, however, isn't as impressive from an offer list standpoint.

 

We took a fairly decently sized class this year. With how hard it is to recruit to Nebraska in general, we had some slots open that we could afford to take chances on some projects or athletes that might take a little time to figure out where they are going to fit in. Let's not forget we recruited SJB as a receiver, Amukamara as an RB, Cody Glenn as an RB, Jamal Turner as a QB, etc etc. As long as we are taking guys that are athletic, we can find a spot for them to shine. So yeah, we might have some two stars/three star guys that weren't heavily recruited or hyped up, but looking at their film, they are athletes and potential game changers if we can get them into the right position. You also have to figure in their work ethic, attitude and ability to stay out of trouble. Can't coach that.

[DrunkOffPunch]

I think it would be interesting to see what this list looks like when you take off a few guys. Chances are guys like Newell, Gates, and Foster account for a large number of those offers.

 

Take the bottom 18 (about 2/3) of our class, throw out the top and see what that looks like. Ultimately I think this recruiting cycle did a great job of addressing our Lines (especially O-Line) with great recruits and is top heavy. The bottom of our class, however, isn't as impressive from an offer list standpoint.

So you're wondering what the class would look like if you take away several of the best players? Yeah, pretty sure most classes wouldn't be as good under those circumstances.

It's also easy for guys like Tolbert, Irons, and Walton to be overlooked when they have two 5* talents in Noil and Willis getting all the attention.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I think it would be interesting to see what this list looks like when you take off a few guys. Chances are guys like Newell, Gates, and Foster account for a large number of those offers.

 

Take the bottom 18 (about 2/3) of our class, throw out the top and see what that looks like. Ultimately I think this recruiting cycle did a great job of addressing our Lines (especially O-Line) with great recruits and is top heavy. The bottom of our class, however, isn't as impressive from an offer list standpoint.

So you're wondering what the class would look like if you take away several of the best players? Yeah, pretty sure most classes wouldn't be as good under those circumstances.

Of course classes get worse under those circumstances, the point is that this class is top heavy strictly from an argument using offer lists as a benchmark. I agree with kozzman. I think our coaches are taking chances on guys with great athletic frame, but who don't have the best offer lists. Tolbert, a tall WR, is a good example.

 

What resource(s) did Landlord use in his original post? Just out of curiosity, I'll go through and see what the list looks using only our bottom 21 commits (take off the top 4).