2011-2015 recruiting and where they are. Might be some of this 2-4

[AFhusker]

So let me get this straight AF. It was perfectly fine for you to bash Bo every chance you get bit no one can say a thing about Riley's questionable play calling or clock management? I stayed away from posting anything about Riley for 3 games but after the Illinois game I had enough. I don't see the superior coaching that I was told we were going to get out of this staff and the clock management is beyond laughable before Wisconsin. I'm not calling for Riley's head but I do believe he is the wrong man for the job. So you keep on bashing Bo if you want but don't pass judgement of anyone that isn't thrilled with Riley.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that questionable clock management which when the truth comes out may be more on TA than the coaches is reason to bash him in the stands? And even if it turns out to be on the coaches, are you saying that is the same as the stuff that Bo pulled? Throwing tantrums on the sideline, almost hitting refs in the face with his hat, telling the entire fanbase to go f#*k themselves? Then you have the on the field issues with being too stubborn to change his defense so it can stop the jet sweep among other issues that have been discussed to death on here. I would have to say that any rational person would say that Bo more than earned his pink slip and by his actions he deserved all of the crap he got from the fans. If Riley were to do the same things, I would say the same about him.

But to have people in the stands saying that he needs to be fired after six games is not only making us sound like an whiny bunch of entitled bitches, but it is ignorant too. If he is going to fail, he will have to be given time to fail, and that won't happen in any less than 4-6 years. Because if you can him without something off the field happening, then why would any other coach that is the caliber that we all want come here? Would you want to work in that kind of environment?

 

[AFhusker]

Every team in college football deals with attrition as well as injuries. The bottom line is that Nebraska has enough talent currently to beat every team that we've played. It's the decision making and personnel decisions that and the overall 'coaching' of this team that has been this teams true downfall. Enough with the excuses....

You are so wrong IDK why I even responded to your post. It's fans like you that are hurting this school. If you don't believe me go look up Keyson Jr's comments about how much he loved it here except for the ignorant fans in the stands that were bitching about MR and how he should be fired. That kid is more knowledgeable about how to build a college program than a lot of the supposed "greatest fans in college football."

Oh the irony! You want to tout Key's plea to cut down negativity so we don't hurt recruiting, all while trying to convince everyone that all our players suck! Man, if that isn't textbook cognitive dissonance, I don't know what is.

That is why we need to recruit, we don't have the talent level to win a championship of any kind. Or at least not the depth which would explain the 4th quarter comebacks as the talent we do have is gassed in the 4th quarter. The truth is that we have kids here that are not good enough football players to be on this team. That is a fact, but that won't hurt recruiting because the more talented players will want to play early and they will have that chance right now. I am impressed that a self proclaimed redneck knew at cognitive dissonance is.

 

[BRV920]

I think the point I'm trying to make is that you did the same exact thing to the last coaching staff. Then you have the stones to lecture everybody else.

 

[Scratchtown]

So hypothetically. We sign 20 guys....we're gunna lose about 8 of them.

That leaves us with 12 guys. That makes recruiting the right guys even more important.

It's always been that way with pretty much every team.

Did I say it wasnt?

All I said is get the right guys. Not just fluff

 

[BigRedBuster]

Number of players who have entered the program since 2011 as scholarship players.

Illinois 88

Indiana 96

Iowa 88

Maryland 83

Michigan 88

Michigan St 80

Minnesota 89

Nebraska 85

Northwester 72

OSU 96

Penn St 88

Purdue 81

Rutgers 90

Wisconsin 74

I find this interesting. The average is 85.5 so we are right at the average. However, only 42% are in what would be the Junior and Senior class this year.

Look at the disparity between OSU and Wisconsin? That's 22 fewer players coming through the system to have a chance to contribute. That's 30% more of a team.

 

[Husker67]

Blaming this 2-4 start on Pelini and his staff seems pretty convenient. Plenty of coaches have taken the talent, or even lack thereof left by their predecessors and won a National Championship.

Do you think John Blake left Bob Stoops a ton of players at Oklahoma in 1999 when Stoops took over? No, Blake sucked and everyone knew it. Yet, it in his second year, Stoops won the NC. Jim Tressel inherited a mess at Ohio State in 2001, and with a bunch of no-names won a National Championship in his second year.

Under Mike Bellotti, Oregon had fallen off a bit, but by his second year, Chip Kelly had them in the National Championship game.. Urban Meyer didn't inherit an OSU program in total disarray, but there were some issues, yet, again by year 3, he won a NC. He did the same at Florida, Ron Zook, had run that into the ground, but by Meyer's second year they were hoisting the trophy.

I would include Pete Carroll, but clearly he was paying everyone he could out there, so without a salary cap restriction, he doesn't count.

So, winning a championship generally speaking doesn't take a full recruiting cycle any more with a quality coaching staff that has a plan, starts recruiting right away so maybe they can get a freshman star in there as soon as possible, and then gets the players to play to the best of their ability by not asking them to do things they probably can't do given the talent of the player. The good coaches have played to their team's and player's strengths regardless of who recruited them or not.

 

[Scratchtown]

You are also forgetting that John blake and Ron Zook are two of the best recruiters in the country. While they were bad coaches, they recruited well. That's why stoops and urban won early. What has stoops done since?

 

[Sargon]

Data with low or no correlation reveals nothing conclusive.

Running off players intentionally and replacing them with recruits helps a team's overall talent yet also reduces it's scholly player retention metric.

A stat that would be useful would be how many 5* and how many 4* players of soph and above status are on the active/available roster NOW. That's a stat I guarantee correlates highly with power rank (and wins but less so due to schedules). And it really directly addresses the question which is "how good are our starting players, comparatively?"

 

[Husker67]

You are also forgetting that John blake and Ron Zook are two of the best recruiters in the country. While they were bad coaches, they recruited well. That's why stoops and urban won early. What has stoops done since?

I'll agree with you there, but Stoops still has a program and record since then that Nebraska would like to have.

 

[Kernal]

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/03/attrition-rates-tell-partial-tale-hokies-swoon-last-few-years

And we're done. Another myth debunked.

You neglect to mention the "source" for that data is a Google document linked through Reddit. LMAO. The article author doesn't even know the dude. He refers to him as "Some fine soul."

Here's what your post claims are the numbers and rates for Nebraska, which are all wrong:

[SIZE=13.3333px]Nebraska[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2014 Signed 24 - 04 (17%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2013 Signed 25 - 07 (28%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2012 Signed 17 - 04 (24%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2011 Signed 19 - 06 (32%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]...[/SIZE]

And here are the actual numbers, with the actual percentages, with the names of the actual players who are gone:

2014 Signed 24 - 06 (25%): Harrison, Irons, Stewart, Tolbert, Walton, Wills

2013 Signed 25 - 10 (40%): Dixon, Gladney, Gregory, Hart, Love, Martinez, Miller, Mixon, Stanton, Suttles.

2012 Signed 17 - 7 (41%): Afalava, Alexander, Anderson, Brown, Curry, Moss, Seisay*

2011 Signed 20 - 11 (55%): Abdullah, Bondi, Carter, Green, Klachko, Moore, Peat, Pirman, Santos, Stafford, Starling,

So all four years of the data I checked was wrong 100% of the time. I'll go out on a limb here and say the rest of it is unreliable too.

 

[BRV920]

Here's a question Sargon. 5 star Marlin lucky or 3 star Ameer Abdullah?

 

[GBRedneck]

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/03/attrition-rates-tell-partial-tale-hokies-swoon-last-few-years

And we're done. Another myth debunked.

You neglect to mention the "source" for that data is a Google document linked through Reddit. LMAO. The article author doesn't even know the dude. He refers to him as "Some fine soul."

Here's what your post claims are the numbers and rates for Nebraska, which are all wrong:

[SIZE=13.3333px]Nebraska[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2014 Signed 24 - 04 (17%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2013 Signed 25 - 07 (28%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2012 Signed 17 - 04 (24%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2011 Signed 19 - 06 (32%)[/SIZE]

...

And here are the actual numbers, with the actual percentages, with the names of the actual players who are gone:

2014 Signed 24 - 06 (25%): Harrison, Irons, Stewart, Tolbert, Walton, Wills

2013 Signed 25 - 10 (40%): Dixon, Gladney, Gregory, Hart, Love, Martinez, Miller, Mixon, Stanton, Suttles.

2012 Signed 17 - 7 (41%): Afalava, Alexander, Anderson, Brown, Curry, Moss, Seisay*

2011 Signed 20 - 11 (55%): Abdullah, Bondi, Carter, Green, Klachko, Moore, Peat, Pirman, Santos, Stafford, Starling,

So all four years of the data I checked was wrong 100% of the time. I'll go out on a limb here and say the rest of it is unreliable too.

The data was as of March 2015. So it doesn't include attrition after that date. You'd need to recaclulate for all the other teams also.

 

[Kernal]

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/03/attrition-rates-tell-partial-tale-hokies-swoon-last-few-years

And we're done. Another myth debunked.

You neglect to mention the "source" for that data is a Google document linked through Reddit. LMAO. The article author doesn't even know the dude. He refers to him as "Some fine soul."

Here's what your post claims are the numbers and rates for Nebraska, which are all wrong:

[SIZE=13.3333px]Nebraska[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2014 Signed 24 - 04 (17%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2013 Signed 25 - 07 (28%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2012 Signed 17 - 04 (24%)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=13.3333px]2011 Signed 19 - 06 (32%)[/SIZE]

...

And here are the actual numbers, with the actual percentages, with the names of the actual players who are gone:

2014 Signed 24 - 06 (25%): Harrison, Irons, Stewart, Tolbert, Walton, Wills

2013 Signed 25 - 10 (40%): Dixon, Gladney, Gregory, Hart, Love, Martinez, Miller, Mixon, Stanton, Suttles.

2012 Signed 17 - 7 (41%): Afalava, Alexander, Anderson, Brown, Curry, Moss, Seisay*

2011 Signed 20 - 11 (55%): Abdullah, Bondi, Carter, Green, Klachko, Moore, Peat, Pirman, Santos, Stafford, Starling,

So all four years of the data I checked was wrong 100% of the time. I'll go out on a limb here and say the rest of it is unreliable too.

The data was as of March 2015. So it doesn't include attrition after that date. You'd need to recaclulate for all the other teams also.

It doesn't include attrition before that date either. I'm not recalculating anything. Of four years checked it is 100% wrong. It's your assertion, if you want to recalculate the other teams have fun.

 

[BRV920]

Do the math on your numbers Kernal. It's 34 divided by 86.

 

[Bowfin]

Give Riley seven years, same as Bo. Then this thread becomes irrelevant because those of us still alive at the end of that juncture won't have to speculate and theorize.