Riley vs. Harbaugh Recruiting: A Parent Chimes In

[cm husker]

nm

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not taking saying away from them by pointing out what TO repeatedly talked about, especially along the OL.

Think of it this way: with less than top 20 talent, NU was consistently top 10 team.

When the stars aligned, and they had top 10 talent, they went on arguably the most dominant run of all time.

That '95 team isn't the most talented of all time, yet it dominated like no other team ever has. Why? Scheme.

You're bashing the players from TOs teams claiming they weren't talented. We had to do special schemes to compensate for their lack of talent.

How dare you bash our players like that.

 

[cm husker]

You're not even funny.

I have no problem with honest assessments of players. But when people try to piss on our current roster and say that it's raining, it's pretty frustrating.

I've said many times that the '15 roster was not a playoff bound roster. But it should have been a 10+ win roster. And that failure falls on the coaches. Not the players who they failed.

 

[cornographic]

Did Tom ever have a recruiting class ranked what Riley's is?

His 1990 class, averaged out across the ranking services as that time, was a 28.33. The only data I'm aware of goes back to 1987, but I also haven't searched that hard for years prior to that.

I don't think OZ ever got very highly ranked recruiting classes. ~20th range on average. Rozier was a community college transfer. We were always 2nd fiddle to Barry in the conference in terms of talent and speed. And then it was The U, and FSU, yada yada. NE is a "coach 'em up" school, always has been, always will be. Of course, if we start winning the division on a regular basis and, heaven forbid, the conference every now and then, well, recruiting can't help but get better.

That simply isn't true, from 87-96 TO signed 5 top 10 classes.

Really, can you prove it?

I see 4 top 5s (and 7 top 10s) depending on the service between over the 12 year span of 85-96. I would consider that really good recruiting.

History of Husker Recruiting by Service

Average Rank of Husker Classes

 

[cm husker]

Did Tom ever have a recruiting class ranked what Riley's is?

His 1990 class, averaged out across the ranking services as that time, was a 28.33. The only data I'm aware of goes back to 1987, but I also haven't searched that hard for years prior to that.

I don't think OZ ever got very highly ranked recruiting classes. ~20th range on average. Rozier was a community college transfer. We were always 2nd fiddle to Barry in the conference in terms of talent and speed. And then it was The U, and FSU, yada yada. NE is a "coach 'em up" school, always has been, always will be. Of course, if we start winning the division on a regular basis and, heaven forbid, the conference every now and then, well, recruiting can't help but get better.

That simply isn't true, from 87-96 TO signed 5 top 10 classes.

Really, can you prove it?

I see 4 top 5s (and 7 top 10s) depending on the service between over the 12 year span of 85-96. I would consider that really good recruiting.

History of Husker Recruiting by Service

Average Rank of Husker Classes

Perhaps I'm miss reading the charts, but that's not what it says. Are you looking at the AP final rankings column? Or double counting the same classes (e.g., Lemming and Wallace both ranked the '96 class in the top 10)?

Top 5 classes

85 - #1 Emfinger

92- #5 Emfinger

95 - #3/#5 Emfinger/Lemming

96 - #2 Wallace

Top 10 classes

Above plus

86 - #6/#7 Emfinger/Wallace

90 - #10 Wallace

94 - #6 Emfinger

Wasn't the original argument that TO's championships team weren't populated with a number of highly ranked classes (and that only after he started winning did the recruitniks start believing he was landing top classes?).

By your numbers, NU only landed 3 top 10 classes in 10 years prior to the championship run. That's not bad, of course, but I think the numbers at your other link tell the story better. I can't seem to cut and paste the chart, but NU had no top 5 finished between '87 and '94 and had more finishes in the 20s as it did in the top 10 during that span.

 

[BigRedBuster]

You're not even funny.

I have no problem with honest assessments of players. But when people try to piss on our current roster and say that it's raining, it's pretty frustrating.

I've said many times that the '15 roster was not a playoff bound roster. But it should have been a 10+ win roster. And that failure falls on the coaches. Not the players who they failed.

Oh...NO....

anyone who even mentions that we need to raise talent levels gets this lecture from you about throwing players under the bus...bla bla bla.....

Back peddle much????

 

[cm husker]

You're not even funny.

I have no problem with honest assessments of players. But when people try to piss on our current roster and say that it's raining, it's pretty frustrating.

I've said many times that the '15 roster was not a playoff bound roster. But it should have been a 10+ win roster. And that failure falls on the coaches. Not the players who they failed.

Oh...NO....

anyone who even mentions that we need to raise talent levels gets this lecture from you about throwing players under the bus...bla bla bla.....

Back peddle much????

Nope, I've been consistent from the beginning:

this roster has plenty of talent to have finished with 10+ wins and a top 20 ranking.

Instead, it fell on its face and the coaches are to blame for that.

But all I read from you and your ilk is how we have an awful QB who is a "turnover machine," a bunch of poisonous attitudes and overall a lack in talent (even though the recruitniks would disagree if they weren't running 20/20 hindsight games).

If someone tells me that this roster isn't good enough to win a playoff game, you won't hear me argue. If you want to tell me this roster isn't good enough to win the B10 championship in 4 out 5 games, I may not even argue (even though we did beat MSU).

But for you and others to claim that this talent is the reason for 6-7? Or a loss to Indiana (!) and BYU and an awful Miami team?) Not to mention a boat racing by Purdue???

No. I won't hear it.

 

[BigRedBuster]

You're not even funny.

I have no problem with honest assessments of players. But when people try to piss on our current roster and say that it's raining, it's pretty frustrating.

I've said many times that the '15 roster was not a playoff bound roster. But it should have been a 10+ win roster. And that failure falls on the coaches. Not the players who they failed.

Oh...NO....

anyone who even mentions that we need to raise talent levels gets this lecture from you about throwing players under the bus...bla bla bla.....

Back peddle much????

Nope, I've been consistent from the beginning:

this roster has plenty of talent to have finished with 10+ wins and a top 20 ranking.

Instead, it fell on its face and the coaches are to blame for that.

But all I read from you and your ilk is how we have an awful QB who is a "turnover machine," a bunch of poisonous attitudes and overall a lack in talent (even though the recruitniks would disagree if they weren't running 20/20 hindsight games).

If someone tells me that this roster isn't good enough to win a playoff game, you won't hear me argue. If you want to tell me this roster isn't good enough to win the B10 championship in 4 out 5 games, I may not even argue (even though we did beat MSU).

But for you and others to claim that this talent is the reason for 6-7? Or a loss to Indiana (!) and BYU and an awful Miami team?) Not to mention a boat racing by Purdue???

No. I won't hear it.

I have sat here and read posts constantly from you over the last two months acting like any fan who says we need to upgrade talent (no matter the conversation) you have accused them of being a pathetic fan and throwing players under the bus and bashing the players...bla bla bla.....

There were times when people weren't even using talent as an excuse for the 6-7 team and you still called them out for it.

After all....you are the all time expert in everything TO.

Now.....you want to back peddle and claim there are times when it's OK to say we don't have good enough talent?

Give me a break.

 

[cornographic]

You're not even funny.

I have no problem with honest assessments of players. But when people try to piss on our current roster and say that it's raining, it's pretty frustrating.

I've said many times that the '15 roster was not a playoff bound roster. But it should have been a 10+ win roster. And that failure falls on the coaches. Not the players who they failed.

Oh...NO....

anyone who even mentions that we need to raise talent levels gets this lecture from you about throwing players under the bus...bla bla bla.....

Back peddle much????

Nope, I've been consistent from the beginning:

this roster has plenty of talent to have finished with 10+ wins and a top 20 ranking.

Instead, it fell on its face and the coaches are to blame for that.

But all I read from you and your ilk is how we have an awful QB who is a "turnover machine," a bunch of poisonous attitudes and overall a lack in talent (even though the recruitniks would disagree if they weren't running 20/20 hindsight games).

If someone tells me that this roster isn't good enough to win a playoff game, you won't hear me argue. If you want to tell me this roster isn't good enough to win the B10 championship in 4 out 5 games, I may not even argue (even though we did beat MSU).

But for you and others to claim that this talent is the reason for 6-7? Or a loss to Indiana (!) and BYU and an awful Miami team?) Not to mention a boat racing by Purdue???

No. I won't hear it.

TO Margin:

117 - Nebraska

Fewest Penalty Yds/Game:

99 - Nebraska

Scoring Defense:

76 - Nebraska

Passing Yds Allowed:

121 - Nebraska

Completion %:

86 - Tommy Armstrong Jr. Nebraska

http://www.ncaa.com/sports/football/fbs

This is why we lost most of the games. We have the talent currently to win the division, though DT is a concern again. Talent has to perform, of course. As to bigger goals, well, we'll be needin' to recruit much better to become relevant on the national stage again.

 

[cm husker]

You're not even funny.

I have no problem with honest assessments of players. But when people try to piss on our current roster and say that it's raining, it's pretty frustrating.

I've said many times that the '15 roster was not a playoff bound roster. But it should have been a 10+ win roster. And that failure falls on the coaches. Not the players who they failed.

Oh...NO....
anyone who even mentions that we need to raise talent levels gets this lecture from you about throwing players under the bus...bla bla bla.....

Back peddle much????

Nope, I've been consistent from the beginning:

this roster has plenty of talent to have finished with 10+ wins and a top 20 ranking.

Instead, it fell on its face and the coaches are to blame for that.

But all I read from you and your ilk is how we have an awful QB who is a "turnover machine," a bunch of poisonous attitudes and overall a lack in talent (even though the recruitniks would disagree if they weren't running 20/20 hindsight games).

If someone tells me that this roster isn't good enough to win a playoff game, you won't hear me argue. If you want to tell me this roster isn't good enough to win the B10 championship in 4 out 5 games, I may not even argue (even though we did beat MSU).

But for you and others to claim that this talent is the reason for 6-7? Or a loss to Indiana (!) and BYU and an awful Miami team?) Not to mention a boat racing by Purdue???

No. I won't hear it.

I have sat here and read posts constantly from you over the last two months acting like any fan who says we need to upgrade talent (no matter the conversation) you have accused them of being a pathetic fan and throwing players under the bus and bashing the players...bla bla bla.....
There were times when people weren't even using talent as an excuse for the 6-7 team and you still called them out for it.

After all....you are the all time expert in everything TO.

Now.....you want to back peddle and claim there are times when it's OK to say we don't have good enough talent?

Give me a break.

You're completely missing the point. TO bad plenty of good enough talent, obviously. Because he knew how leverage it!

No one is saying TO didn't have the talent necessary to win. Unlike what people claimed a lot Riley. Difference is, TO knew how to win with the skills he had on hand. That seems to be a BIG difference.

Stop trying to draw false equivalency.

 

[Red Five]

By your numbers, NU only landed 3 top 10 classes in 10 years prior to the championship run. That's not bad, of course, but I think the numbers at your other link tell the story better. I can't seem to cut and paste the chart, but NU had no top 5 finished between '87 and '94 and had more finishes in the 20s as it did in the top 10 during that span.

Classic cm. He is shown numbers. Tells someone they are wrong. Are shown they are right. Then disregards those numbers all together.

If you go by a combination of Emfinger/Wallace/Lemming, Nebraska had 3 top 10 classes in the 5 prior for both the 94 and 95 title teams.

 

[cornographic]

Er, Riley et al have only 1 year under their belt. New system, you know, Not much of a sample size. Gonna take some time.

 

[BigRedBuster]

You're not even funny.

I have no problem with honest assessments of players. But when people try to piss on our current roster and say that it's raining, it's pretty frustrating.

I've said many times that the '15 roster was not a playoff bound roster. But it should have been a 10+ win roster. And that failure falls on the coaches. Not the players who they failed.

Oh...NO....
anyone who even mentions that we need to raise talent levels gets this lecture from you about throwing players under the bus...bla bla bla.....

Back peddle much????

Nope, I've been consistent from the beginning:

this roster has plenty of talent to have finished with 10+ wins and a top 20 ranking.

Instead, it fell on its face and the coaches are to blame for that.

But all I read from you and your ilk is how we have an awful QB who is a "turnover machine," a bunch of poisonous attitudes and overall a lack in talent (even though the recruitniks would disagree if they weren't running 20/20 hindsight games).

If someone tells me that this roster isn't good enough to win a playoff game, you won't hear me argue. If you want to tell me this roster isn't good enough to win the B10 championship in 4 out 5 games, I may not even argue (even though we did beat MSU).

But for you and others to claim that this talent is the reason for 6-7? Or a loss to Indiana (!) and BYU and an awful Miami team?) Not to mention a boat racing by Purdue???

No. I won't hear it.

I have sat here and read posts constantly from you over the last two months acting like any fan who says we need to upgrade talent (no matter the conversation) you have accused them of being a pathetic fan and throwing players under the bus and bashing the players...bla bla bla.....
There were times when people weren't even using talent as an excuse for the 6-7 team and you still called them out for it.

After all....you are the all time expert in everything TO.

Now.....you want to back peddle and claim there are times when it's OK to say we don't have good enough talent?

Give me a break.

You're completely missing the point. TO bad plenty of good enough talent, obviously. Because he knew how leverage it!

No one is saying TO didn't have the talent necessary to win. Unlike what people claimed a lot Riley. Difference is, TO knew how to win with the skills he had on hand. That seems to be a BIG difference.

Stop trying to draw false equivalency.

Stop scolding posters by claiming they are bashing players when they aren't.

 

[cm husker]

Bashing/blaming. Whatever.

The problem is that a lot of Bbs Warriors a ready to blame the players far more than they will a .500 staff. and that's a problem.

And it has nothing to do with crediting the players and coaches under TO.

 

[cm husker]

Did Tom ever have a recruiting class ranked what Riley's is?

His 1990 class, averaged out across the ranking services as that time, was a 28.33. The only data I'm aware of goes back to 1987, but I also haven't searched that hard for years prior to that.

I don't think OZ ever got very highly ranked recruiting classes. ~20th range on average. Rozier was a community college transfer. We were always 2nd fiddle to Barry in the conference in terms of talent and speed. And then it was The U, and FSU, yada yada. NE is a "coach 'em up" school, always has been, always will be. Of course, if we start winning the division on a regular basis and, heaven forbid, the conference every now and then, well, recruiting can't help but get better.

That simply isn't true, from 87-96 TO signed 5 top 10 classes.

Really, can you prove it?

TO would not be well under today's scholarship limits. That's just a claim and it's proven false with the data above (taken from Huskermax.com's recruiting pages). Not only do people inflate Osborne's statistics, they also forget that he did have 7-10 more scholly's up until 1994. Not to take away from where he took us and what he did...just that it'd be nice if we referred to facts.

Your numbers actually prove exactly the opposite, even with your arbitrary 4-year groupings that try to show otherwise! You seem to ignore attrition all together. Reality is, TO only three times (28, 26, 28) exceeded 25 scholarships in a given year (25 being the yearly limit now, not including 3 schollie buffer that takes the limit to 28). 10 times during that period, he signed classes of 22 or less.

Try looking at the the average recruiting class size during a 4 year period of almost any other major P5 program today, and you'll see many more than 87 to 92 kids signed.

Thank you for proving that TO's recruiting numbers, at least based on signing day scholarships awarded, would have complied with today's rules.

As a sidenote: it's absurd that we are limiting scholarships like this with the money that's sloshing around CFB. So many opportunities for kids to get more free education, and we are instead arbitrarily limiting the numbers. Pure stupidity (and greed?) on the part of the Universities and Colleges.

What I proved is that he had more scholly's to give out and that he wouldn't be under 85. I grouped them by 4 years so that they would coincide with the changes in scholarship rules I posted at the top of the stats.

25 is not a hard limit anywhere...just look here at class size: http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

85 total is the limit. At any given time, TO had more than that all the way up to his last year. Remember...85 TOTAL.

But hey, mold it to fit what you want right?

Do you comprehend the concept of attrition?

For example, NU has signed during 86 during past 4 classes, and that was a middle of the pack number in the B10.

You also don't seem to understand how the 85 operates. It's not that a team can't have more than 85 at a given time. It's that they must be at or under 85 by the fall.

Also, you're incorrect regarding the 25 per year limit, though, as I have mentioned, there are ways around it:

NCAA Bylaw 15.5.6.1 limits FBS football programs to a total number of scholarships to 85 "counters" annually including 25 scholarships for "initial counters." Counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3) are individuals who are receiving institutional financial aid that is countable against the aid limitations in a sport, initial counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3.1) are individuals who are receiving countable financial aid in a sport for the first time. Bylaw 13.9.2.3 limits schools to signing 28 NLI from initial signing day through May 31.[1]

Oversigning can occur in two ways. First, if a school signs a number of NLI that may bring their total number of counters above the NCAA limit of 85. Second would be to sign more than 25 NLI during the period between National Signing Day and May 31.

Oversigning occurs in other sports but has received the most attention from media members and fans, in regard to Division I FBS college football.[2][3][4]

NCAA rules permit oversigning up to 28 NLI, though some college football fans view oversigning as unethical, arguing that it requires schools and coaches to be dishonest with young adult and adolescent recruits by promising them a roster spot and scholarship only to pull it before the person graduates or even makes the team