The Tangent Thread, Dec 2014 Edition
- Thread starter zoogs
- Start date
Kernal
Starter
2010 Missouri was ranked #7. The last time was in 2001 when Solich's team beat #2 Oklahoma, thirteen years ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd
Head Coach
Were the talent levels that different? What had each team usually been ranked on Rivals? I have no idea at all, that is why I ask.
FrankWheeler
Starter
Nebraska (4 year recruiting average)
2009 - 29.5
2010 - 23.3
2011 - 23.8
2012 - 22.5
2013 - 19.8
2014 - 22.3
5 year average - 22.3
Oregon St
2009 - 48.5
2010 - 49.3
2011 - 51.5
2012 - 48.3
2013 - 44.5
2014 - 47.0
5 year average - 48.1
2009 - 29.5
2010 - 23.3
2011 - 23.8
2012 - 22.5
2013 - 19.8
2014 - 22.3
5 year average - 22.3
Oregon St
2009 - 48.5
2010 - 49.3
2011 - 51.5
2012 - 48.3
2013 - 44.5
2014 - 47.0
5 year average - 48.1
Stumpy1
All-American
On Rivals since 2011:
NU: 15, 25, 17, 32, 31
OSU: 56, 39, 39, 54, 58
We have had considerably better classes then Oregon State. I would say our talent level is better but their coaching was better.
Ooooh. I hope they carry the momentum from that big win into their bowl game....oh....wait.... 5-7
Ooooh. I hope they carry the momentum from that big win into their bowl game....oh....wait.... 5-7
teachercd
Head Coach
Thanks! That is a pretty big gap, no doubt.
But I think we also realize that NU needs more than even top 25 classes...they really need around 15 or better.
Danny Bateman
Heisman Trophy Winner
I'd argue it's very difficult to recruit to a program that is definitely lacking in regional talent and now has the reputation of being an also-ran good team that gets blown out any time they play anyone that's a legitimate top 25 team.
It's a bit of a chicken or egg problem... What comes first, on field success or top recruiting classes?
This year, a top 25 class would be good by me. Recruiting rankings tend to be misleading anyway as they give too much weight to schools with large classes. We've got a small senior class this year, IIRC, so we're a bit hamstrung. I prefer to look at rankings sorted by avg stars per player.
It's a bit of a chicken or egg problem... What comes first, on field success or top recruiting classes?
This year, a top 25 class would be good by me. Recruiting rankings tend to be misleading anyway as they give too much weight to schools with large classes. We've got a small senior class this year, IIRC, so we're a bit hamstrung. I prefer to look at rankings sorted by avg stars per player.
Last edited by a moderator:
74Hunter
Banned
So, now it's ok to have a losing season as long as we beat a top 10 team? Is that championship football?
Talk about grasping for straws, holy moly.
Anyhow, OSUs radio color guy was just on S&B, said that the WR &LB coaches are solid. Said that the ST coach sucks and is a bad recruiter. Said Banker isn't too great, said that the OL coach wasn't very good, and probably isn't a good recruiter, either.
Dr. Mantis Toboggan
Banned
The Dude
Heisman Trophy Winner
Barney?
agreed, but would replace "great talent" with "good talent". Watching tOSU the other night, they have "great talent" all over the place. They look the part of a top caliber team (not that that always results in W's), but physically, they look a good bit more talented than the Huskers with the eyeball test IMO
The Dude
Heisman Trophy Winner
74Hunter
Banned
I must be confused. Why is it that when his record at OSU is brought up, someone has to counter with the 3 top 10, or top 5 teams that he's beat?
It certainly seems that people are ok with losing as long as we beat a top 10 team every now and then.