Sipple: Osborne weighs in on Husker recruiting

[Creighton Duke]

COACHING comes down to more than ONE coach dude! Those guys had VERY smart coordinators and staff under them, as Bo had to start fresh! Its all off of Coaching! Look at Michigan for example!!! #4 recruiting class last year, where are they? How about Auburn? Virginia Tech? Vanderbilt? Washington? North Carolina? All schools that "ranked" higher in recruiting than us, and we have a more talented group than every one of them. Right now, those coaches you named are far more experienced at their positions than Bo, but Bo has been coming along VERY well.

Michigan - Won a BCS bowl last year; could win the Legends Division of Big 10

Auburn - two years removed from nat'l champ; play in the hardest division of the hardest conference in America

VT - one year removed from ACC Championship game appearance; 3 conference titles in 4 years before that (and if you honestly believe that Beamer and his staff aren't good at COACHING, well...)

Vandy - About to become bowl eligible in consecutive years for the first time since 22-23 when they were the Southern Conference champs; play in the hardest conference; academic standards

So you admit they are better COACHES or do they get better recruits?

Last year's recruiting class would be playing this year LOL, and they are not any better than they were the year before.

Vandy, ohhhhhhh they are 4-4 (2-3 SEC) that is enough said there.

Your missing the HUGE point! JUST BECAUSE YOU GET 4-5* KIDS DOESN'T MEAN YOUR GOING TO BE GREAT!!! You can turn a "2*" kid into a 5* athlete with the right coaching, and the right kid with the right mental attitude and will. Starts with coaching, ends with coaching. It doesn't take 4-5* recruits to win Championships, it takes the right amount of coaching.

Vandy would compete in this year's Big 10.

No, I think you're (try to work on this) missing the point. The relationship works like this:

great coaching, great 4-5*talent = championships at regular intervals (i.e. Bama, LSU, Pete Carroll USC)

buffoon coaching, great 4-5*talent = championships every so often (i.e. Auburn with Chizik)

great coaching, mediocre 2-3*talent = championships once every 20 years if ever (i.e.Pat Fitzgerald, Dan Mullen (medicore talent compared to conference))

buffoon coaching, mediocre 2-3* talent = nothing (i.e. most of college football)

See, talent wins championships a lot. Great coaching wins championships a lot when combined with the great talent; without great talent, great coaching is wasted.

 

[HuskerNationNick]

double post

 

[HuskerNationNick]

great coaching, mediocre 2-3*talent = championships once every 20 years if ever (i.e.Pat Fitzgerald, Dan Mullen (medicore talent compared to conference))

The only problem I have with that, is how on the hell did TO win his 3 National Titles in a 4 year span? You act like we recruited all 5 star athletes.

I have never stated that those kids aren't good, and don't help make a team better. I simply stated it doesn't matter what kids you get, it all lands on coaching. A good coach, can turn a 2* kid into a stud. Its been proven, and still gets proven to this day. To base a coaches performance off the "Top 25 Recruiting Class" is just ridiculous. It starts with coaching, and ends with coaching, as I have stated a million times before.

 

[Fuzzy]

You know Ameer Abdullah was a 3 star back, we all know he is not a 3 star back, the kid looked like a solid 4 star back when he took the field last year.

Kenny Bell was a 3 star athlete, He ranks near the top as one of the best receivers in the Big Ten.

 

[HuskerNationNick]

You know Ameer Abdullah was a 3 star back, we all know he is not a 3 star back, the kid looked like a solid 4 star back when he took the field last year.

Kenny Bell was a 3 star athlete, He ranks near the top as one of the best receivers in the Big Ten.

3* athletes have just as much of an impact as these "4*-5*" athletes. Johnny Stanton and Tommy Armstrong both 3* kids as well. Stars are a joke.

Fuzzy, that is exactly what I have been trying to explain this whole time.

 

[Creighton Duke]

great coaching, mediocre 2-3*talent = championships once every 20 years if ever (i.e.Pat Fitzgerald, Dan Mullen (medicore talent compared to conference))

The only problem I have with that, is how on the hell did TO win his 3 National Titles in a 4 year span? You act like we recruited all 5 star athletes.

I have never stated that those kids aren't good, and don't help make a team better. I simply stated it doesn't matter what kids you get, it all lands on coaching. A good coach, can turn a 2* kid into a stud. Its been proven, and still gets proven to this day. To base a coaches performance off the "Top 25 Recruiting Class" is just ridiculous. It starts with coaching, and ends with coaching, as I have stated a million times before.

Ok, you're talking about the greatest CFB of all time who DID have some elite talent (probably better, adjusted for inflation than we do now) during a period where recruiting was a little more volatile i.e. not the same teams every year getting the best talent/talent being spread around. I mean, it was a completely different landscape back then. Go back another 20 years and you'll find schools that didn't recruit minority players. Again, a different landscape.

Deferring to coaching, another reason why that late Osborne-era staff is tough to compare to is because of the absurd amount of total years that that staff had collectively on the Nebraska staff. I mean, it was approaching 200 years if I remember correctly. Staffs stayed together longer back then, but that was an anomally even for the time...so yeah, I agree that coaching matters, but the gold standard that you are comparing too is something that was a freak occurance and that I can confidently say will never come around again.

 

[Creighton Duke]

You know Ameer Abdullah was a 3 star back, we all know he is not a 3 star back, the kid looked like a solid 4 star back when he took the field last year.

Kenny Bell was a 3 star athlete, He ranks near the top as one of the best receivers in the Big Ten.

I can pick out 3 star athletes on an SEC, Texas, or USC roster who have contributed in a much greater manner than their recruiting hype dictated. Picking out a nice success story here and there doesn't equate to championships.

 

[junior4949]

so you're telling me Osborne had some top ten classes and ranking between 15-30 in the recruiting ranking? i thought all the rosters from the 1990's were made up of walk-ons and 1 star kids, coaching is the most important thing but you got to get some elite kids as well

The difference being we were Bama' dominant then with classes ranked in the 15-30 while Bama' is Bama' dominant with classes ranked 1-5. We gotta get "some" elite kids. We don't have to have the entire recruiting class made up of elite players. This is what TO did was get "some". Bo has been getting "some". If our wins and losses come down to whether we have consecutive top ten recruiting classes or not, fans are more than likely going to be awfully disappointed.

 

[Junior]

I've found this article to be a great insight on recruiting rankings. Are they the end all, be all? Certainly not, but they do give you an idea of what a player is capable of.

http://sports.yahoo....-214251813.html

Pay particular attention to this figure:

Recruiting rankings aren't about every player being correctly slotted as a star. But if you look at the rankings, the odds of a 5 star player becoming an All-American (1 in 12) is substantially higher than that of a 3 star player (1 in 133). This is what is important about recruiting rankings.

Of course you can find a 2 star guy that works his way to an All-American team. But those are fewer and farther between than a 5 star guy who does it.

So when you look at a recruiting class with three 4 star players and twelve 3 star players, you might have an All-American player in your class... but the odds are against it.

EDIT: I don't know why the figure isn't showing up, it does when I'm 'editing' the post...

 

[Vizsla1]

That picture posted is in my top 10 TO pics of all time. The other ones I like are with Switzer or the one where TO is looking a little excited about a play that is taking place in front of him. He has his head phones on and about to spit his gum out of his mouth.

 

[Internet Smartguy]

6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

http://www.rivals.com/aboutrankings.asp?Sport=1

5.7 are what Abdullah, Bell, and Martinez, (Armstrong, Gerry, Stanton) were rated coming out of High School. That is the highest ranking for a 3 Star prospect. Top 750 kids coming out of High School in the whole nation. I don’t understand why people think a kid rated as a Top 3 Star prospect means that Rivals missed on them. So far I would say they are right on the money. All three of those guys are All Conference worthy but not All American worthy.

 

[CornHOLIO]

Hockey is another sport. How many hot prospects for hockey come from Florida or Texas?

How many hot prospects for hockey come from..uh..Are there any hot prospects for hockey ?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Canada...eh???

 

[Mavric]

6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

http://www.rivals.co...ngs.asp?Sport=1

5.7 are what Abdullah, Bell, and Martinez, (Armstrong, Gerry, Stanton) were rated coming out of High School. That is the highest ranking for a 3 Star prospect. Top 750 kids coming out of High School in the whole nation. I don’t understand why people think a kid rated as a Top 3 Star prospect means that Rivals missed on them. So far I would say they are right on the money. All three of those guys are All Conference worthy but not All American worthy.

The same reason everyone seems to think three-star players aren't worth recruiting and the coaches aren't doing their job unless our classes are full of 4* and 5* players.

 

[Mavric]

Recruiting sources provide entertainment. That is it. As long as people subscribe to their services and get all worked up about recruits that may or may not come to their school, they will keep raking in the money.

In the grand scheme of things, they have very mixed success in picking who is going to be good or not.

I guess probably in a macro sense, they do a decent job. In general, I'm sure their 4-5 star guys do better than their 2-3 star guys.

The problem comes down to when you try to paint a certain player into a corner based on these rankings. There is a very very long list of 5 star guys who couldn't do a thing in college and a very very long list of 3 star guys who turned out to be very good.

There is absolutely no way these services can analyze ever single player in the US fairly. A kid like Jared Crick in the middle of Texas or Florida is probably going to be at least a 4 star kid. In the middle of Nebraska that same kid is only a 3 star because the perception is that he hasn't played against anyone good. Then, if a particular player all of a sudden gets offers from Texas, USC and Alabama...guess what happens to his rankings. The kid hasn't changed but the perception has.

Bottom line is it's for entertainment purposes only. Decisions should not be made on coaches jobs..etc. based on recruiting service rankings.

This is where you start to see the correlation between recruiting rankings and on-field success.

2006 January 8, 2007 2 Florida 41 1 Ohio State 14 BCS National Championship 2007 January 7, 2008 2 LSU 38 1 Ohio State 24 BCS National Championship 2008 January 8, 2009 1 Florida 24 2 Oklahoma 14 BCS National Championship 2009 January 7, 2010 1 Alabama 37 2 Texas 21 BCS National Championship 2010 January 10, 2011 1 Auburn 22 2 Oregon 19 BCS National Championship 2011 January 9, 2012 2 Alabama 21 1 LSU 0 BCS National Championship

True, if you cherry pick the ones you want:

Texas - 2012 - #2, 2011 - #3, 2010 - #3, 2009 - #5, 2008 - #14; Five-Year Record: 44-16

Miami - 2012 - #9, 2011 - #36, 2010 - #16, 2009 - #15, 2008 - #5; Five-Year Record: 34-26

Auburn - 2012 - #10, 2011 - #7, 2010 - #4, 2009 - #19, 2008 - #20; Five-Year Record: 36-24

Texas A&M - 2012 #15, 2011 - #27, 2010 - #17, 2009 - #22, 2008 - #16; Five-Year Record: 32-27

Tennessee - 2012 #17, 2011 - #13, 2010 - #9, 2009 - #10, 2008 - #35; Five-Year Record: 26-32

Compared to Nebraska - 2012 - #25, 2011 - #15, 2010 - #22, 2009 - #28, 2008 - #30; Five-Year Record: 44-18

So our best class were ahead of two classes that same year plus we were ahead of Tennesse one other time. Other than that, we were last for each given year. Yet we are only slightly behind one team for the best record over that time (and there may-or-may-not have been a disputed ending that could have changed that around).