Jump to content
BigRedBuster

Comparing Recruiting Classes

Recommended Posts

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating # of recruits

05 .8523 31

06 .8493 22

07 .8241

08 .7903

09 .7883

10 .7801

11 .8832 21

12 .8674 18

13 .8334

14 .8472 25

15 .8170

16 .8702 (So far) 15

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

I edited to put in class size. I was looking at 247 and realized that for some reason some classes have some walk-ons listed and some don't. Not sure why

Edited by Mavric
Split to it's own thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting info.

 

Would you want to add number of commits to that?

Are you talking to the list from each year?

 

I could. But, I purposely left them off because my point was to look at the quality of recruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting info.

 

Would you want to add number of commits to that?

Are you talking to the list from each year?

 

I could. But, I purposely left them off because my point was to look at the quality of recruit.

 

 

Yeah, I agree that the average rating is the thing to look at. The reason having the number of commits would be a good footnote is because it's easier to get a higher average rating in a class of 17 than it is in a class of 25. There is a roster-management part of that as well but we might be getting the same number of four-star guys each year but some years we have to "fill in" more than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I hadn't noticed this before but the class average listed at the top included the total number of players in that class, including unrated walk-ons. The 2012 class actually averaged .8772 if unrated Chris Long isn't included - adds to the divisor but not the dividend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting info.

 

Would you want to add number of commits to that?

Are you talking to the list from each year?

 

I could. But, I purposely left them off because my point was to look at the quality of recruit.

 

 

Yeah, I agree that the average rating is the thing to look at. The reason having the number of commits would be a good footnote is because it's easier to get a higher average rating in a class of 17 than it is in a class of 25. There is a roster-management part of that as well but we might be getting the same number of four-star guys each year but some years we have to "fill in" more than others.

 

Agree. From 2005 till 2015, we were anywhere from 2 to 9 4* recruits. The highest was in 2011 with 9 and 2010 with 8.

We had drastically dropped off from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I hadn't noticed this before but the class average listed at the top included the total number of players in that class, including unrated walk-ons. The 2012 class actually averaged .8772 if unrated Chris Long isn't included - adds to the divisor but not the dividend.

yeah...I noticed that too. Frustrating and not sure why 247 did that in some years and not others.

 

I'm sure as hell not going to go through and add up and divide 10 years of recruits when I'm not even sure if any non rated recruits were on scholarship or rated recruits were walk-ons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

 

 

Yet to be answered as in how good do the players turn out to be? That's a separate - but related - discussion.

 

If we're just trying to compare recruiting, the only question to answer is how to weight each factor - average, number of 4*s, number of commits, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

 

 

Yet to be answered as in how good do the players turn out to be? That's a separate - but related - discussion.

 

If we're just trying to compare recruiting, the only question to answer is how to weight each factor - average, number of 4*s, number of commits, etc.

 

Well, that's why I was looking at average player rating.

There is no way legally we are going to have a class of 28 players. So....when comparing the quality of the job our staff has done, to me, it doesn't make sense to compare them to classes that have 28 players and include number of players as a factor.

 

To me, we have a group of pretty dang good players in our 15 commits. We are in on some more very good players that we just need to close on. Combine those together, and I think we have a pretty good class as it relates to most of the classes over the last 10 - 11 years......when you don't take into account number of players that we aren't going to be able to get to anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

 

 

Yet to be answered as in how good do the players turn out to be? That's a separate - but related - discussion.

 

If we're just trying to compare recruiting, the only question to answer is how to weight each factor - average, number of 4*s, number of commits, etc.

 

Well, that's why I was looking at average player rating.

There is no way legally we are going to have a class of 28 players. So....when comparing the quality of the job our staff has done, to me, it doesn't make sense to compare them to classes that have 28 players and include number of players as a factor.

 

To me, we have a group of pretty dang good players in our 15 commits. We are in on some more very good players that we just need to close on. Combine those together, and I think we have a pretty good class as it relates to most of the classes over the last 10 - 11 years......when you don't take into account number of players that we aren't going to be able to get to anyway.

 

 

But it's easier to have a higher average at 15 than 28. That's why simply looking at the average doesn't tell the whole story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating

05 .8523 - 4

06 .8493 - 4

07 .8241 - 5

08 .7903 - 3

09 .7883 - 2

10 .7801 - 5

11 .8832 - 9

12 .8674 - 8

13 .8334 - 7

14 .8472 - 2

15 .8170 - 4

16 .8702 (So far) - 3

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

 

I've added the number of 4*+ recruits in each class (per 247 Composite).

 

So was the 2006 class (.8493 average, 21 commits) better than the 2007 class (.8241, 26)? Or did 2007 class just average just get dragged down a little by extra commits, including a kicker?

 

Is the 2016 class (.8702, 15) better than the 2012 class (.8674, 17) even though the 2012 class had eight four-star players and this class has three?

 

Those are all the little questions that have yet to be answered.

 

 

Yet to be answered as in how good do the players turn out to be? That's a separate - but related - discussion.

 

If we're just trying to compare recruiting, the only question to answer is how to weight each factor - average, number of 4*s, number of commits, etc.

 

Well, that's why I was looking at average player rating.

There is no way legally we are going to have a class of 28 players. So....when comparing the quality of the job our staff has done, to me, it doesn't make sense to compare them to classes that have 28 players and include number of players as a factor.

 

To me, we have a group of pretty dang good players in our 15 commits. We are in on some more very good players that we just need to close on. Combine those together, and I think we have a pretty good class as it relates to most of the classes over the last 10 - 11 years......when you don't take into account number of players that we aren't going to be able to get to anyway.

 

 

But it's easier to have a higher average at 15 than 28. That's why simply looking at the average doesn't tell the whole story.

 

But, it's definitely a major part of the puzzle.

 

And, it's easier to have a highly ranked class when you pull in 28-30...or even 31 recruits. So, I don't take too much faith from the rankings.

 

Right now we are sitting at 3 4* recruits. Honestly, I really don't even like using that data. If I. Simmons commits, we get another 4* recruit rated at .8913. If Newman commits, we get another 3* recruit rated at .8896. So, if Newman's rating would just go up .0004, he would have his 4th star. Is Simmons THAT much better of a recruit than Newman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if a coach is taking pretty much the maximum he can take each year, that's all he can do as far as numbers. The Big Ten has greatly limited the coach's ability to play with numbers and sign huge classes. I agree with the rule, but....again, it's not really fair to compare us to programs that are going to sign 28-30 players by simply ranking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if a coach is taking pretty much the maximum he can take each year, that's all he can do as far as numbers. The Big Ten has greatly limited the coach's ability to play with numbers and sign huge classes. I agree with the rule, but....again, it's not really fair to compare us to programs that are going to sign 28-30 players by simply ranking them.

I believe 247 only counts the top 20 kids of each class so it is completely fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, if a coach is taking pretty much the maximum he can take each year, that's all he can do as far as numbers. The Big Ten has greatly limited the coach's ability to play with numbers and sign huge classes. I agree with the rule, but....again, it's not really fair to compare us to programs that are going to sign 28-30 players by simply ranking them.

I believe 247 only counts the top 20 kids of each class so it is completely fair.

 

 

Pretty sure it's Rivals that does that. 247 uses them all, iirc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2011 looked good on paper but take a closer look at the players and see that a lot of the higher profile stars from that class contributed next to zero for the team.

 

So with that being said, this is probably going to be the best class in the last 11 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, if a coach is taking pretty much the maximum he can take each year, that's all he can do as far as numbers. The Big Ten has greatly limited the coach's ability to play with numbers and sign huge classes. I agree with the rule, but....again, it's not really fair to compare us to programs that are going to sign 28-30 players by simply ranking them.

I believe 247 only counts the top 20 kids of each class so it is completely fair.

 

 

Pretty sure it's Rivals that does that. 247 uses them all, iirc.

 

However, I like 247 composite rating because it's not just relying on one service to rate the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2011 looked good on paper but take a closer look at the players and see that a lot of the higher profile stars from that class contributed next to zero for the team.

 

So with that being said, this is probably going to be the best class in the last 11 years.

Could be. We won't know that for 3-4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the correct numbers based on the scholarship signees using 247 Composite

 

Class Average Recruits (# 4*+)

02 .8316 18 (2)

03 .8316 19 (2)

04 .8237 20 (2)
05* .8523 32 (7)
06* .8493 22 (5)
07* .8587 26 (6)
08 .8449 29 (3)
09 .8580 19 (2)
10* .8642 20 (5)
11 .8832 21 (9)
12 .8773 17 (8)
13 .8654 24 (7)
14 .8601 24 (2)
15 .8616 21 (4)
16 .8702 (So far) 15 (3)

 

* 2005 - Leon Jackson isn't on 247's list but was a 4* on Rivals

* 2006 - Major Culbert doesn't show a rating on 247 but was a high 3* on Rivals

* 2007 - Armando Murillo (JUCO) not included in 247's list

* 2010 - Stanley Jean-Baptiste and Chase Harper (JUCOs) not included in 247's rankings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the correct numbers based on the scholarship signees using 247 Composite

 

Class Average Recruits (# 4*+)

02 .8316 18 (2)

03 .8316 19 (2)

04 .8237 20 (2)

05* .8523 32 (7)

06* .8493 22 (5)

07* .8587 26 (6)

08 .8449 29 (3)

09 .8580 19 (2)

10* .8642 20 (5)

11 .8832 21 (9)

12 .8773 17 (8)

13 .8654 24 (7)

14 .8601 24 (2)

15 .8616 21 (4)

16 .8702 (So far) 15 (3)

 

* 2005 - Leon Jackson isn't on 247's list but was a 4* on Rivals

* 2006 - Major Culbert doesn't show a rating on 247 but was a high 3* on Rivals

* 2007 - Armando Murillo (JUCO) not included in 247's list

* 2010 - Stanley Jean-Baptiste and Chase Harper (JUCOs) not included in 247's rankings

Wow......good work.

 

Kudos to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact we can't win a conference championship with the recruiting classes of 11-12-13 is ridiculous. Screw championship. SEVEN GAMES. We can't win 7 games with 24 four star players walking in the door in a three year span?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the correct numbers based on the scholarship signees using 247 Composite

 

Class Average Recruits (# 4*+)

02 .8316 18 (2)

03 .8316 19 (2)

04 .8237 20 (2)

05* .8523 32 (7)

06* .8493 22 (5)

07* .8587 26 (6)

08 .8449 29 (3)

09 .8580 19 (2)

10* .8642 20 (5)

11 .8832 21 (9)

12 .8773 17 (8)

13 .8654 24 (7)

14 .8601 24 (2)

15 .8616 21 (4)

16 .8702 (So far) 15 (3)

 

* 2005 - Leon Jackson isn't on 247's list but was a 4* on Rivals

* 2006 - Major Culbert doesn't show a rating on 247 but was a high 3* on Rivals

* 2007 - Armando Murillo (JUCO) not included in 247's list

* 2010 - Stanley Jean-Baptiste and Chase Harper (JUCOs) not included in 247's rankings

Great job to the OP and Mav. Back before work got in the way I started to do a correlation project to compare the rankings to actual value contributed, it turned into a comparison to other teams and a true look at rankings to BCS participation. Then work got in the way, may dust it off, this summary is a great start if I can because I was only going off Rivals and Scout as 247 wasn't around yet. I like their composite ranking quite a bit. I believe the rankings are a great guide, but not the whole story. There are many examples where the results out did the class ranking, was the coach better at talent eval, IMO yes, or were they simply really good at squeezing everything out of a player, or both?

 

I have been continually confounded how the '10 and '11 and '12 classes haven't been better in results to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact we can't win a conference championship with the recruiting classes of 11-12-13 is ridiculous. Screw championship. SEVEN GAMES. We can't win 7 games with 24 four star players walking in the door in a three year span?

You do realize how many of those players left fairly shortly after they got here, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact we can't win a conference championship with the recruiting classes of 11-12-13 is ridiculous. Screw championship. SEVEN GAMES. We can't win 7 games with 24 four star players walking in the door in a three year span?

 

2011 4* No Longer with the Team

 

Bubba Starling (Baseball)

Todd Peat (transfer)

Ryan Klachko (transfer)

Tyler Moore (transfer)

Daimion Stafford (graduated)

Aaron Green (transfer)

Jamal Turner (graduated)

Ryne Reeves (graduated)

 

 

2012 4* No Longer with the Team

 

Imani Cross (graduated)

Jared Afalava (transfer)

Mo Seisay (graduated)

 

 

 

 

2013 4* No Longer with the Team

 

Randy Gregory (NFL)

Johnny Stanton (transfer)

 

 

 

 

Out of nine 4*'s in 2011...1 didn't play (Bubba), 4 transferred and 3 contributed and graduated. 1 is still with the team (Charles Jackson)

Out of eight 4*s in 2012...2 contributed and graduated, 1 transferred. 5 are still with the team (Thurston, McMullen, Westerkamp, Rose, Armstrong)

Out of seven 4*'s in 2013...1 transferred, 1 left for the NFL. 5 are still with the team (T. Newby, Taylor, Banderas, M. Newby, Natter)

 

 

That leaves us with 11 out of 24 that can contribute this next year.

Oddly enough, that number was only 14 out of 24 in 2015.

 

So, the 2011 class was probably the biggest bust in the history of Nebraska recruiting...because everyone left. You can't build around a core of athletes you don't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact we can't win a conference championship with the recruiting classes of 11-12-13 is ridiculous. Screw championship. SEVEN GAMES. We can't win 7 games with 24 four star players walking in the door in a three year span?

2011 4* No Longer with the Team

 

Bubba Starling (Baseball)

Todd Peat (transfer)

Ryan Klachko (transfer)

Tyler Moore (transfer)

Daimion Stafford (graduated)

Aaron Green (transfer)

Jamal Turner (graduated)

Ryne Reeves (graduated)

 

 

2012 4* No Longer with the Team

 

Imani Cross (graduated)

Jared Afalava (transfer)

Mo Seisay (graduated)

 

 

 

 

2013 4* No Longer with the Team

 

Randy Gregory (NFL)

Johnny Stanton (transfer)

 

 

 

 

Out of nine 4*'s in 2011...1 didn't play (Bubba), 4 transferred and 3 contributed and graduated. 1 is still with the team (Charles Jackson)

Out of eight 4*s in 2012...2 contributed and graduated, 1 transferred. 5 are still with the team (Thurston, McMullen, Westerkamp, Rose, Armstrong)

Out of seven 4*'s in 2013...1 transferred, 1 left for the NFL. 5 are still with the team (T. Newby, Taylor, Banderas, M. Newby, Natter)

 

 

That leaves us with 11 out of 24 that can contribute this next year.

Oddly enough, that number was only 14 out of 24 in 2015.

 

So, the 2011 class was probably the biggest bust in the history of Nebraska recruiting...because everyone left. You can't build around a core of athletes you don't have.

Yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the correct numbers based on the scholarship signees using 247 Composite

 

Class Average Recruits (# 4*+)

02 .8316 18 (2)

03 .8316 19 (2)

04 .8237 20 (2)

05* .8523 32 (7)

06* .8493 22 (5)

07* .8587 26 (6)

08 .8449 29 (3)

09 .8580 19 (2)

10* .8642 20 (5)

11 .8832 21 (9)

12 .8773 17 (8)

13 .8654 24 (7)

14 .8601 24 (2)

15 .8616 21 (4)

16 .8702 (So far) 15 (3)

 

* 2005 - Leon Jackson isn't on 247's list but was a 4* on Rivals

* 2006 - Major Culbert doesn't show a rating on 247 but was a high 3* on Rivals

* 2007 - Armando Murillo (JUCO) not included in 247's list

* 2010 - Stanley Jean-Baptiste and Chase Harper (JUCOs) not included in 247's rankings

Once again, Mav....Great job on the work you put in. I was too lazy to do it.

 

Looking at what I believe is our 10 top targets I think we can sign at least 4 of them. I'm purposely trying to be conservative with that number:

 

a) Lets say we sign the top 4 along with all we already have committed. That would be Jackson, Farniok, Fitzpatrick, Simmons. Those 4 average .9140. That would bring our average for the class up to .8794.

 

b) Let's say we sign the bottom 4 along with all we already have committed. That would be Butler, Watts, Ivey, Sails. Those 4 average .8637. That would bring our average for the class to .8688.

 

So....for the top 19 players, I see our range being somewhere between .8688 and .8794.

 

Now, if we are going to have 23 players, let's say we reach out to 4 more players that are lower 3* and that have an average rating of .8200. That puts our projected final average rating between .8603 and .8691.

 

That would rank this class anywhere from 6th to 3rd when looking at our classes since 2002. Pretty much in line with the last three years.

 

Now...as has been pointed out, the real crux of it is, how many of our top recruits will we be able to keep and have contribute. That is going to be the difference maker.

 

For the people who act like they are in panic mode as far as recruiting.....we are far from that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting part to your info is this.

 

From 2004 to 2007, we brought 100 players into the program.

 

From 2012 to 2015, we brought 86 players into the program.

 

That's 14 fewer scholarship players Nebraska coaches had a chance to work with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting part to your info is this.

 

From 2004 to 2008, we brought 100 players into the program.

 

From 2012 to 2015, we brought 86 players into the program.

 

That's 14 fewer scholarship players Nebraska coaches had a chance to work with.

Is that comparing 5 classes to 4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another interesting part to your info is this.

 

From 2004 to 2008, we brought 100 players into the program.

 

From 2012 to 2015, we brought 86 players into the program.

 

That's 14 fewer scholarship players Nebraska coaches had a chance to work with.

Is that comparing 5 classes to 4?

 

 

 

I added 20, 32, 22 and 26 to get 100

 

I added 17, 24,24, and 21 to get 86

 

Sorry, the earlier dates should be 2004 to 2007.

 

I will correct that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nebraska played with just 44 active scholarship players from the previous three recruiting classes, a paltry total compared to its major-conference peers."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2016/01/06/nebraska-football-coach-mike-riley-offseason/78344448/

I would not be surprised if Penn State has that many scholarship players even after their big Sandusky/Paterno scandal penalties. This is not good. We obviously are lacking in numbers of good player as well as players with exceptional skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would rank this class anywhere from 6th to 3rd when looking at our classes since 2002. Pretty much in line with the last three years.

 

Now...as has been pointed out, the real crux of it is, how many of our top recruits will we be able to keep and have contribute. That is going to be the difference maker.

 

For the people who act like they are in panic mode as far as recruiting.....we are far from that situation.

On pure talent level of what is coming in, yes I agree MR is doing better than some perceive, however IMO a lot of how to rate recruiting is to also evaluate the ability to fill needs with impact athletes and maintain proper depth and roster balance. MR inherited a roster with some gaps and lack of difference makers at certain spots, though the team overall has a lot of talent on it. This team needs OTs and DEs in the worst way and I just don't feel real comfortable right now where this staff stands in landing difference making talent at both positions. They seem to have better prospects at OT lately, but DE still seems a mystery to me. If they fill the class and get a great rating, but don't sufficiently fill the needs of the roster then I would struggle to give them a good grade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That would rank this class anywhere from 6th to 3rd when looking at our classes since 2002. Pretty much in line with the last three years.

 

Now...as has been pointed out, the real crux of it is, how many of our top recruits will we be able to keep and have contribute. That is going to be the difference maker.

 

For the people who act like they are in panic mode as far as recruiting.....we are far from that situation.

On pure talent level of what is coming in, yes I agree MR is doing better than some perceive, however IMO a lot of how to rate recruiting is to also evaluate the ability to fill needs with impact athletes and maintain proper depth and roster balance. MR inherited a roster with some gaps and lack of difference makers at certain spots, though the team overall has a lot of talent on it. This team needs OTs and DEs in the worst way and I just don't feel real comfortable right now where this staff stands in landing difference making talent at both positions. They seem to have better prospects at OT lately, but DE still seems a mystery to me. If they fill the class and get a great rating, but don't sufficiently fill the needs of the roster then I would struggle to give them a good grade.

 

Valid point. Balance on the roster is important.

 

If they have good talent in the class but miss on those two areas then I would agree to not give them an A. But, I would still give them a decent grade.

 

We'll see how it ends up. If Farniok comes in at tackle and we get someone like Ivey who can come in as a JUCO at DE......I'l feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating # of recruits

05 .8523 31

06 .8493 22

07 .8241

08 .7903

09 .7883

10 .7801

11 .8832 21

12 .8674 18

13 .8334

14 .8472 25

15 .8170

16 .8702 (So far) 15

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

I edited to put in class size. I was looking at 247 and realized that for some reason some classes have some walk-ons listed and some don't. Not sure why

 

Where did you pull these numbers? I want to check something out.

 

I noticed on rivals a while back that the point system totally shifted over the years so that you couldn't really run valid comparisons.

 

I'd like to see if the overall average scores have increased across the board.

 

Then again, this teen beat crap of monetizing the next hot teenager during the offseason is basically worthless to begin with, so I may not bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact we can't win a conference championship with the recruiting classes of 11-12-13 is ridiculous. Screw championship. SEVEN GAMES. We can't win 7 games with 24 four star players walking in the door in a three year span?

2011 4* No Longer with the Team

 

Bubba Starling (Baseball)

Todd Peat (transfer)

Ryan Klachko (transfer)

Tyler Moore (transfer)

Daimion Stafford (graduated)

Aaron Green (transfer)

Jamal Turner (graduated)

Ryne Reeves (graduated)

 

 

2012 4* No Longer with the Team

 

Imani Cross (graduated)

Jared Afalava (transfer)

Mo Seisay (graduated)

 

 

 

 

2013 4* No Longer with the Team

 

Randy Gregory (NFL)

Johnny Stanton (transfer)

 

 

 

 

Out of nine 4*'s in 2011...1 didn't play (Bubba), 4 transferred and 3 contributed and graduated. 1 is still with the team (Charles Jackson)

Out of eight 4*s in 2012...2 contributed and graduated, 1 transferred. 5 are still with the team (Thurston, McMullen, Westerkamp, Rose, Armstrong)

Out of seven 4*'s in 2013...1 transferred, 1 left for the NFL. 5 are still with the team (T. Newby, Taylor, Banderas, M. Newby, Natter)

 

 

That leaves us with 11 out of 24 that can contribute this next year.

Oddly enough, that number was only 14 out of 24 in 2015.

 

So, the 2011 class was probably the biggest bust in the history of Nebraska recruiting...because everyone left. You can't build around a core of athletes you don't have.

50% contribution rates aren't necessarily awful. But I agree that the class took a big hit. But worst in school history? Uh, do you recall 2005?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FYI...this is from what I posted in a different thread.

 

Class Average player rating # of recruits

05 .8523 31

06 .8493 22

07 .8241

08 .7903

09 .7883

10 .7801

11 .8832 21

12 .8674 18

13 .8334

14 .8472 25

15 .8170

16 .8702 (So far) 15

So...if we end up with an average of .8743, we would have second highest rating from the last 11 years.

Now, I know there is a ton more that goes into if this ends up a good class. Everything has to work right from...a) did we get players in positions of need? b) are they going to come here and work their azzes off? c) Do we have the coaches in place to make them winners. and on and on and on....

I edited to put in class size. I was looking at 247 and realized that for some reason some classes have some walk-ons listed and some don't. Not sure why

Where did you pull these numbers? I want to check something out.

 

I noticed on rivals a while back that the point system totally shifted over the years so that you couldn't really run valid comparisons.

 

I'd like to see if the overall average scores have increased across the board.

 

Then again, this teen beat crap of monetizing the next hot teenager during the offseason is basically worthless to begin with, so I may not bother.

247 composite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peep's recruiting was horrendous.

 

POB will single handidly earn more post season honors than all 4*s from '11 combined at NU.

 

Thanks for the data acq work gentlemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peep's recruiting was horrendous.

 

POB will single handidly earn more post season honors than all 4*s from '11 combined at NU.

 

Thanks for the data acq work gentlemen.

 

Or he'll be a hackenburg type, or worse, a Harrison beck type.

 

But way to trash our players. You're all class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Peep's recruiting was horrendous.

 

POB will single handidly earn more post season honors than all 4*s from '11 combined at NU.

 

Thanks for the data acq work gentlemen.

 

Or he'll be a hackenburg type, or worse, a Harrison beck type.

 

But way to trash our players. You're all class.

While I don't agree with him that our recruiting has been bad the last three years, how exactly did he trash our players in a way that is classless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Peep's recruiting was horrendous.

 

POB will single handidly earn more post season honors than all 4*s from '11 combined at NU.

 

Thanks for the data acq work gentlemen.

 

Or he'll be a hackenburg type, or worse, a Harrison beck type.

 

But way to trash our players. You're all class.

While I don't agree with him that our recruiting has been bad the last three years, how exactly did he trash our players in a way that is classless?

What does it mean to say a coach's recruiting is atrocious other than that the players he brought in are terrible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm no. You're made up outrage is ridiculous.

 

That could mean a lot of things from roster mismanagement in recruiting to leaving certain positions thin on players. You can say our recruiting needs to improve without insulting the current players.

 

And. Our players wear big boy pants. It's ok to talk about the team and where they need to improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm no. You're made up outrage is ridiculous.

 

That could mean a lot of things from roster mismanagement in recruiting to leaving certain positions thin on players. You can say our recruiting needs to improve without insulting the current players.

 

And. Our players wear big boy pants. It's ok to talk about the team and where they need to improve.

You don't seem to see the difference between "this is atrocious" and "this can be improved in areas." And that's baffling.

 

Though your big boy pants deflection indicates that you actually might.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.8668

Thanks! I saw our average on 247 Composite Ranking was an average of 86.68. I thought that's where you were getting it but wasn't positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated as of right now. With Fitzpatrick and Jackson this class would go to .8747. With those two plus Simmons it would go to .8755. All three are four-stars.

Class Average Recruits (# 4*+)
02 .8316 18 (2)
03 .8316 19 (2)
04 .8237 20 (2)
05* .8523 32 (7)
06* .8493 22 (5)
07* .8587 26 (6)
08 .8449 29 (3)
09 .8580 19 (2)
10* .8642 20 (5)
11 .8832 21 (9)
12 .8773 17 (8)
13 .8654 24 (7)
14 .8601 24 (2)
15 .8616 21 (4)
16 .8707 21 (5)


* 2005 - Leon Jackson isn't on 247's list but was a 4* on Rivals
* 2006 - Major Culbert doesn't show a rating on 247 but was a high 3* on Rivals
* 2007 - Armando Murillo (JUCO) not included in 247's list
* 2010 - Stanley Jean-Baptiste and Chase Harper (JUCOs) not included in 247's rankings

Edited by Mavric
Updated with Jackson and Engelhaupt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threw this together based on 247's ratings (tried doing it with Rivals and Scout, too, but it seemed their websites broke down a bit once you got further back than four or five years. If anyone has their rankings going back to 2001, feel free to share them and I will update the chart).

 

You can't really determine a trend line with only two data points, but at least it so far looks like we're moving the right direction with Riley.

 

post-13271-0-25931200-1454615875_thumb.png

Edited by Mavric
Moved from the 2017 thread as it fits better here and will be easier to find later.

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.

×