Nebraska's roster Talent (graph) or: "At the Base of the Mountain"

[melscott62]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see graphs like this for each of the last say 10 years and compare it with final season results. I would guess 9 out of 10 NC teams are in the elite talent category

I'll hit you in 10 minutes.

 

Update: The talent analysis from the OP only contains data for the last two years, so the data isn't readily available

 

That said, the last two national champions (Ohio St and Bama) are both in the elite category in their respective year

Looking at the programs that won titles in the past 10 years it's safe to assume they were either in the elite or great category the year they won.

Something I can give you... Average Recruiting Ranking of National Champion 4 years prior to national championship year:

 

2005 - Texas (8)

2006 - Florida (5)

2007 - LSU (7.5)

2008 - Florida (5.25)

2009 - Alabama (8.25)

2010 - Auburn (15.75)

2011 - Alabama (2.75)

2012 - Alabama (2.25)

2013 - Florida St. (5.75)

2014 - Ohio St. (4.25)

2015 - Alabama (1)

 

Clearly, talent is important. If you say "elite" is top 10 recruiting, only one anomaly (Auburn) in the last 10 years. And that was Cam Newton.

Nebraska has got some work to do

FWIW, Nebraska's average recruiting ranking in the 4 years prior to this season is 28.25. Woof.

Not a surprise. Imo this is the least talented team we have had in a while. I was saying that when we were undefeated. The talent(specially top end) is a little lower. I feel the coaches did well with what they had

[Making Chimichangas]

I know its not exactly the same but in years past Nebraska used to 'oversign' in a way by having preferred 'walk ons' who were, I think, promised a chance for a future scholarship after a year or two if the guy does well. In a way this is 'over signing'. Of course, I assume the SEC teams are oversigning and then renegging on the scholarship as they absolutely KNOW that a set number of players promised current scholarships will NOT get them. This is basically fraud in the inducement (in legal terms). It would be interesting to see a group of those players actually file a lawsuit for breach of contract for not honoring their promise. It is a binding contract I believe as I think I read that NCAA now requires schools to honor the scholarships for full four years. ???​

 

 

 

@84HuskerLaw,

 

I had heard something similar about the 4 year scholarship as well...

 

I found this: http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/schools-can-give-out-4-year-athletic-scholarships-but-many-dont/

[JJ Husker]

 

The team that jumps off the charts to me ... that also reflects what Nebraska has lost ... is WISCONSIN! That team is ranked 33 in talent and has performed as a Top 15 team for a good 5 years. Wisconsin has a "old school" football mindset that Nebraska has lost. I can't recall any recruiting class of theirs that has been anything worth sneezing about ... yet they beat the crap out of folks ... or just play solid football until most teams fade via mistakes or implosion. This is the aspect that I wish Nebraska would recapture. Everyone seems to talk about the need for better recruiting classes (who wouldn't disagree) ... but until our mindset and identity really changes ... I won't buy in.

This. So much this. NU was the B1G, before the B1G existed. Power football. Physical in the trenches. A definitive identity. Practices harder than games....I look at Wisky, PSU and Iowa and see NU of old. Relentless. Full of fight until the last second. Playing inspired from snap to whistle.....I miss those days.

Until we embrace who we were, and quit running from it, we are doomed to continue to repeat the sameness crap that's plagued us for better than 10 years......

I'm on board with you guys.

Osborne's recruiting was never highly regarded yet the system he built had them constantly exceeding the apparent recruiting rankings. I realize that many of the rules have changed in that regard but that mindset and system can overcome a whole bunch of recruiting misadventures. If we want to compete in the B1G we are going to have to get back to depth, reloading and the pipeline mentality. This cutsie finesse offense and bend bend break defense will only garner the same results we've seen for the last 15 years. We need the "system" back that allows for success without elite talent because that has never been our strength.

[lo country]

 

 

The team that jumps off the charts to me ... that also reflects what Nebraska has lost ... is WISCONSIN! That team is ranked 33 in talent and has performed as a Top 15 team for a good 5 years. Wisconsin has a "old school" football mindset that Nebraska has lost. I can't recall any recruiting class of theirs that has been anything worth sneezing about ... yet they beat the crap out of folks ... or just play solid football until most teams fade via mistakes or implosion. This is the aspect that I wish Nebraska would recapture. Everyone seems to talk about the need for better recruiting classes (who wouldn't disagree) ... but until our mindset and identity really changes ... I won't buy in.

This. So much this. NU was the B1G, before the B1G existed. Power football. Physical in the trenches. A definitive identity. Practices harder than games....I look at Wisky, PSU and Iowa and see NU of old. Relentless. Full of fight until the last second. Playing inspired from snap to whistle.....I miss those days.

Until we embrace who we were, and quit running from it, we are doomed to continue to repeat the sameness crap that's plagued us for better than 10 years......

I'm on board with you guys.

Osborne's recruiting was never highly regarded yet the system he built had them constantly exceeding the apparent recruiting rankings. I realize that many of the rules have changed in that regard but that mindset and system can overcome a whole bunch of recruiting misadventures. If we want to compete in the B1G we are going to have to get back to depth, reloading and the pipeline mentality. This cutsie finesse offense and bend bend break defense will only garner the same results we've seen for the last 15 years. We need the "system" back that allows for success without elite talent because that has never been our strength.

 

My dad said this years ago....What you lack in talent and abilities, make up with physical and aggressive play.

[GBRFAN]

These are all great ideas, however the "system" doesn't work unless you have 15-25 walk-on's per year that are low D1 caliber that don't mind giving up the scholarship. This has been discussed way too many times - there are too many good second level programs in our 300 mile radius and the cost of education has increased too much since the 80's-90's.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Every ranked team will have a mix of Elite, Great, Good and Above-Average talent. I think the real difference is depth. The powerhouse teams can keep bringing in fresh legs and injury replacements where lesser teams -- like us -- get real thin, real quick.

 

And let's also not overlook the SEC's gaming of the rules, where they forcibly run off players perceived as underperforming (e.g. Ameer Abdullah) to get the scholarship back into play, have high numbers of recruits in their classes, and ultimately cheat the system in place currently. Wash, rinse, repeat until they've got teams that are stacked from top to bottom.

 

If Alabama were to actually recruit like the rest of the teams in FBS and were stopped from running off underperforming kids (not sure if this has been done yet, since it was a conference-wide thing and not just an Alabama thing) then you'd start seeing depth issues in their roster again.

 

I agree with you on your post about Alabama and the SEC. However, I'm not sure how Ameer Abdullah fits in to the conversation. We got him out of HS. He wasn't on a roster and then cut because of under performing.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

Every ranked team will have a mix of Elite, Great, Good and Above-Average talent. I think the real difference is depth. The powerhouse teams can keep bringing in fresh legs and injury replacements where lesser teams -- like us -- get real thin, real quick.

 

And let's also not overlook the SEC's gaming of the rules, where they forcibly run off players perceived as underperforming (e.g. Ameer Abdullah) to get the scholarship back into play, have high numbers of recruits in their classes, and ultimately cheat the system in place currently. Wash, rinse, repeat until they've got teams that are stacked from top to bottom.

 

If Alabama were to actually recruit like the rest of the teams in FBS and were stopped from running off underperforming kids (not sure if this has been done yet, since it was a conference-wide thing and not just an Alabama thing) then you'd start seeing depth issues in their roster again.

 

I agree with you on your post about Alabama and the SEC. However, I'm not sure how Ameer Abdullah fits in to the conversation. We got him out of HS. He wasn't on a roster and then cut because of under performing.

 

 

My apologies. I must have confused AA with another player--I could have sworn one of our bigger contributors during the Pelini era was a former SEC player who played for one year and then was run off...I updated the post. Thanks for calling me out on that.

[VectorVictor]

@VectorVictor, exactly right.

 

Alabama is able to be so dominant year after year because they do exactly what you describe: they over-sign and then run off the players who they missed on.

 

There was an article posted years ago by someone (can't find the link or article now) in which he detailed quite nicely the exact methodology of how Alabama and indeed the rest of the S$C over-sign. It was this article which serves as the basis for my over-signing example below:

 

If Alabama only has 15 open scholarships for 2011, and still signs 21 players in February, that's 6 extra players to pick and choose from.

If Alabama has 18 open scholarships for 2012 and signs 27 players, that's 9 extra players

If Alabama has 17 open scholarships for 2013 and signs 25 players, that's 8 extra players.

If Alabama has 20 open scholarships for 2014 and signs 28 players, that's 8 extra.

 

Over this ^^^^ imaginary 4 year recruiting cycle, that equates to Alabama essentially signing 5, possibly 6, recruiting classes in 4 years. It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude at how that type of practice gives them a blatantly unfair advantage.

 

Yup. You hit the nail on the head.

 

The question we need to ask ourselves is "how bad do we want to win?" in a college football world where the NCAA is toothless and the SEC is blatantly cheating and getting away with it:

 

• Is getting back to our 1980s/1990s winning ways worth stooping down to the level of SEC schools and over-recruiting/running off kids?
• Or is our program's integrity and honesty worth more than being a perennial powerhouse?

 

And yes, Nebraska is fully capable of employing SEC tactics and being successful at it. I would even dare say we could start this season and be contending for the B1G title in two years, winning the B1G wholesale in four, and being back to our old selves in five or six. But doing that using the SEC's tactics is cheap, hollow, and dirty, and, to me, taints any gains we would make as a program.

 

Thanks to the wholesale cultural degradation of honesty and integrity by (overwhelmingly most of) the schools in the south and southwestern United States, I don't think you can have it both ways in CFB anymore.

[soup]

FYI - on oversigning The B1G has strict rules against it. No more than +3 in any given class.

 

And I also believe that scholarships are only binding for 1 year, and then renewed every year. I believe there was to be a rule change to make them binding for 4 years, but I don't believe that passed.

[BigRedBuster]

FYI - on oversigning The B1G has strict rules against it. No more than +3 in any given class.

 

And I also believe that scholarships are only binding for 1 year, and then renewed every year. I believe there was to be a rule change to make them binding for 4 years, but I don't believe that passed.

Personally, I would be OK with a rule where a school can over sign. However, if they "run off" a kid on the back end, they are required to honor the scholarship as an academic scholarship so the kid can finish his degree as long as he keep his grades at the level he would have needed to keep them to be eligible for the sport. The school would also be required to allow him to have access to all academic help the normal athlete has. However, he would not be eligible to participate on the team in any way.

 

This would allow for the program to move forward if they made a mistake offering a kid athletically and the kid just never turned out to be the player anyone expected. But, it also allows these kids to finish their education which ultimately is the most important part of this issue.

 

For instance, let's say for what ever reason everyone involved knows Adam Taylor is not going to contribute on the field but he really needs that scholarship to be able to complete a degree and be successful moving forward in life. Why not allow him to do that within the rules and not have him cost us against the 85 limit?

 

Also, if the school puts a kid in this category of scholarship, he is eligible to sign with another team and play without sitting out a year.

[JJ Husker]

These are all great ideas, however the "system" doesn't work unless you have 15-25 walk-on's per year that are low D1 caliber that don't mind giving up the scholarship. This has been discussed way too many times - there are too many good second level programs in our 300 mile radius and the cost of education has increased too much since the 80's-90's.

I understand that not all facets of the past system are viable now. Heck, the lack of coaching staff continuity alone is a huge hit. But my comments were meant more towards reestablishing NU as having dominate line play and a feared running game as well as getting more aggressive on the D side. I believe these are things we can still do (as lo said, Wiscy, PSU and Iowa are managing to do it better than we are) given the current environment. It doesn't necessarily take better talent but rather a change in the vision for the program.

[Atbone95]

 

FYI - on oversigning The B1G has strict rules against it. No more than +3 in any given class.

 

And I also believe that scholarships are only binding for 1 year, and then renewed every year. I believe there was to be a rule change to make them binding for 4 years, but I don't believe that passed.

Personally, I would be OK with a rule where a school can over sign. However, if they "run off" a kid on the back end, they are required to honor the scholarship as an academic scholarship so the kid can finish his degree as long as he keep his grades at the level he would have needed to keep them to be eligible for the sport. The school would also be required to allow him to have access to all academic help the normal athlete has. However, he would not be eligible to participate on the team in any way.

 

This would allow for the program to move forward if they made a mistake offering a kid athletically and the kid just never turned out to be the player anyone expected. But, it also allows these kids to finish their education which ultimately is the most important part of this issue.

 

For instance, let's say for what ever reason everyone involved knows Adam Taylor is not going to contribute on the field but he really needs that scholarship to be able to complete a degree and be successful moving forward in life. Why not allow him to do that within the rules and not have him cost us against the 85 limit?

 

Also, if the school puts a kid in this category of scholarship, he is eligible to sign with another team and play without sitting out a year.

 

Because that's part of the game. Recruiting is a vital part of a successful program, and a fun part - coaches have to be good talent evaluators before they can be good coaches. If you eliminate a coaches need to evaluate talent well, you'll lower the quality of the sport IMO.

 

Or just see more Alabama's. You're essentially arguing to legalize what they're doing. For schools such as ourselves and Alabama, where money is no issue, keeping a kid on scholarship for 2 extra years is equivalent to a dime. They'd do it in a heartbeat. But schools lower down the ladder can't, and that isn't "fair" (PC culture bro).

[LumberJackSker]

i'm to lazy to look it up but what happens to the players that Alabama runs off? do they say they're injured and put the on medical hardship or do they transfer to other schools where they have a shot at playing time? or is saban just kicking these kids out of school? i have no problem with a coach sitting a player down and saying it would be in the guys best interest to transfer because he isn't ever going to contribute at Nebraska.

[Making Chimichangas]

i'm to lazy to look it up but what happens to the players that Alabama runs off? do they say they're injured and put the on medical hardship or do they transfer to other schools where they have a shot at playing time? or is saban just kicking these kids out of school? i have no problem with a coach sitting a player down and saying it would be in the guys best interest to transfer because he isn't ever going to contribute at Nebraska.

It's mostly Saban and the rest of the Alabama coaches telling a kid, "You might want to start looking for playing time elsewhere." Which is an indirect way of saying: you're never going to see the field, and we can't officially be "over" the scholly limit, so...the door is that way. If a kid wants to stick around, he can be targeted for abuse during practice, he can left off the travel squad, I mean there are multiple ways to let a recruit know he's no longer welcome. Then, why they just "leave" on their own.