Recent Recruiting Success & Failure

[Blackshirt96]

The reason having a lot of "homegrown talent" plus some stars from other areas worked so well before is our weight lifting program was miles ahead of most everyone else's. That's no longer the case.

Disagree.

NU wasn't that far ahead of the other top 30 to 40 programs, especially by the 90s.

NU is considered the birth place of college S&C. This statement is a joke. I would love to see one article to back up your comment.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13175331/how-former-pole-vaulter-sparked-college-football-training-revolution

 

[GBRFAN]

This entire "Callahan as an example that you can't recruit players from far away" fails to consider the rise of social media and the fact that kids are in constant contact with their friends no matter where they are in the country. I'm not saying the point is wrong, I'm just saying the world works differently today than it did 10-12 years ago. It's easier to combat homesickness now.

It's not about whether you can recruit them. It's about whether you can effectively retain them and get production from them.

You also have to consider that besides homesickness, there's a very real draw in a players' parents/friends/family being able to attend games in person. That's simply not easy for most people in CA or other far away states. So, while NE can pull players from those states, can they pull guys who are better than those available within 500 miles?

Personally, I think the 500 mile issue is a little overstated. It should be though more of as a 500 mile radius plus each state within the conference footprint. So, the approach should be more oblong than circular. Because you can tell kids in that corridor that they'll at least travel to nearby games 2 or 3 times a year (kind of what we used to be able to tell Texas recruits when we were part of the B12).

CM

This conversation has taken a turn since yesterday. You now seem to be discussing things with a tone that sits well with others. Your message is still on the opposite side of some, however discussion is flowing!!!

 

[AFhusker]

We're all guilty of living in the moment, but in my opinion, this is one of the most (if not the most) substantial recruits Nebraska has brought in for a long time. I don't say that because I have high expectations of greatness for him - I just say that because his name carries a lot of weight and influence. He's got friends that are being recruited to Nebraska that may now give us harder looks and consideration. There are coaches and players all over the country, who don't even know him personally, that are today saying 'woah... Nebraska got Keyshawn's son??'

And hey, if he ends up being extremely productive for us then that's great and what really matters =).

This recruitment reminded me so much of Andrus Peat, well except the whole good guys won part. I am a lot more comfortable today with the Riley hire. Him & his staff have done a better job recruiting then I remember Pelini ever doing. The last class had a very bad end with no DL's in it, but Riley was quick to do what needed to be done. My only concern with him/staff now is play calling & really we have only seen 1 season of play calling.

I feel the same way except for the play calling. I want to see what the offense is like when we have a QB that listens to his coaches and doesn't turn the ball over trying to play hero ball.

 

[cm husker]

The reason having a lot of "homegrown talent" plus some stars from other areas worked so well before is our weight lifting program was miles ahead of most everyone else's. That's no longer the case.

Disagree.
NU wasn't that far ahead of the other top 30 to 40 programs, especially by the 90s.

NU is considered the birth place of college S&C. This statement is a joke. I would love to see one article to back up your comment.http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13175331/how-former-pole-vaulter-sparked-college-football-training-revolution

I'll bite my tongue re the tone of your response and just ask you to think about what I wrote. And then read the article. Because the two aren't inconsistent.

NU revolutionized the approach as far back as when Devaney was still coach. They really got it going in the 70s. By the 1980s, the top programs were following suit, as alluded to in the article you posted. By the mid 1980s and definitely by the 1990s, NU was still top tier in S&C, but that tier had grown much larger.

 

[84HuskerLaw]

After reading through this recruiting discussion, I have to offer that there have been very good points and counterpoints made by both sides. CM makes some very good reasoned arguments for why the recruiting focus (the 'heart' or the core of the recruiting class and effort) should be within the 500 mile or the big ten vacinity at least. There is certainly a strong case that it will be easier to recruit players whose homes and families and friends and coaches, etc are within reasonable driving range as costs and travel constraints limit the interest from afar. On the other hand, we want to recruit the best possible talent wherever that may be. We are not having as much luck gettng the 'local' 4 and 5 star guys away from their favoraite alternative schools. All good points. Interesting discussion. Perhaps don't hit so hard back and forth and stick to debate.

 

[cm husker]

We're all guilty of living in the moment, but in my opinion, this is one of the most (if not the most) substantial recruits Nebraska has brought in for a long time. I don't say that because I have high expectations of greatness for him - I just say that because his name carries a lot of weight and influence. He's got friends that are being recruited to Nebraska that may now give us harder looks and consideration. There are coaches and players all over the country, who don't even know him personally, that are today saying 'woah... Nebraska got Keyshawn's son??'

And hey, if he ends up being extremely productive for us then that's great and what really matters =).

This recruitment reminded me so much of Andrus Peat, well except the whole good guys won part. I am a lot more comfortable today with the Riley hire. Him & his staff have done a better job recruiting then I remember Pelini ever doing. The last class had a very bad end with no DL's in it, but Riley was quick to do what needed to be done. My only concern with him/staff now is play calling & really we have only seen 1 season of play calling.

I feel the same way except for the play calling. I want to see what the offense is like when we have a QB that listens to his coaches and doesn't turn the ball over trying to play hero ball.

Some keep wanting to put this on Tommy. But if you look at it historically, Tommy's first year performance was essentially the best of any new starter in a Riley system.

Is it at all possible that the nature of the system is to blame for first year struggles as much as any perceived individual shortcomings?

 

[commando]

So Riley is making a mistake taking highly ranked kids from California because our team in 97 had 38% Nebraska kids on it?

 

[Redux]

So Riley is making a mistake taking highly ranked kids from California because our team in 97 had 38% Nebraska kids on it?

Yep, and our S&C program wasn't that much better than anyone elses during our dynasty.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone...

 

[cm husker]

I simply haven't made those arguments.

but I get it. Strawmen are easier targets than inconvenient truths.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I simply haven't made those arguments.

but I get it. Strawmen are easier targets than inconvenient truths.

Well then you are doing a horrible job of explaining your stance. It's not a "strawman" if that is what multiple people are seeing in your posts.

Here is what I get from your posts and I don't think I'm alone:

1. You are still upset that Frank and Bo were fired.
2. You think they both could have ended up here with great success here recruiting Nebraska kids and every excuse that has ever been brought up as to why they were fired is hogwash.
3. TO is king and everything he has said or did is without question the only way to be successful here and any deviation from that is doomed to failure.
4. Since TO didn't build his dynasty in the 90s around a QB and crop of WRs that can pass and catch the ball really well, there is no way in hell good QBs and WRs are ever going to be successful here so anyone trying to recruit them is doomed to failure.
5. Whatever the current staff is doing, if it isn't written down somewhere in a book that TO wrote, it's doomed to failure.
6. We didn't have any sort of big advantage in strength training and nutrition in the glory years and anyone who tries to say we did is totally twisting history.

Am I leaving anything out?

Now, if these 6 points are way off from what you believe and have been posting for what seems like an eternity in every thread, then please clarify your positions.

 

[Redux]

The reason having a lot of "homegrown talent" plus some stars from other areas worked so well before is our weight lifting program was miles ahead of most everyone else's. That's no longer the case.

Disagree.

NU wasn't that far ahead of the other top 30 to 40 programs, especially by the 90s.

I simply haven't made those arguments.

but I get it. Strawmen are easier targets than inconvenient truths.

 

[cm husker]

Correct. Top 30 or so programs. Which is much different than how you framed it. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

 

[Redux]

Correct. Top 30 or so programs. Which is much different than how you framed it. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Okay chief
I think you purposely word your "points" in such a way that they will be taken "incorrectly" just so you have a reason to debate people when they call you out.

 

[cm husker]

I simply haven't made those arguments.

but I get it. Strawmen are easier targets than inconvenient truths.

Well then you are doing a horrible job of explaining your stance. It's not a "strawman" if that is what multiple people are seeing in your posts.

Here is what I get from your posts and I don't think I'm alone:

1. You are still upset that Frank and Bo were fired.
2. You think they both could have ended up here with great success here recruiting Nebraska kids and every excuse that has ever been brought up as to why they were fired is hogwash.
3. TO is king and everything he has said or did is without question the only way to be successful here and any deviation from that is doomed to failure.
4. Since TO didn't build his dynasty in the 90s around a QB and crop of WRs that can pass and catch the ball really well, there is no way in hell good QBs and WRs are ever going to be successful here so anyone trying to recruit them is doomed to failure.
5. Whatever the current staff is doing, if it isn't written down somewhere in a book that TO wrote, it's doomed to failure.
6. We didn't have any sort of big advantage in strength training and nutrition in the glory years and anyone who tries to say we did is totally twisting history.

Am I leaving anything out?

Now, if these 6 points are way off from what you believe and have been posting for what seems like an eternity in every thread, then please clarify your positions.

1. I'm still upset that people want to rewrite history and won't own up to what they wanted in each case. I have a lot more respect for people who own that they (a) didn't like the two of them personally, whether because one was too boring or the other too fiery, and (b) they think anyone who isn't off to an HOF start should be fired, even if the start is otherwise quite good relative to all other coaches. I'm still confounded by those that can't, in retrospect, understand or admit that firing Frank was a very bad idea and has had dire consequences with respect to the program. Am I upset about them being fired? No, but it upsets me that Husker fans can't seem to learn from our own mistakes. And that we don't hold people accountable for those mistakes (specifically Perlman).

2. I think they both could have built a lot on their initial successes. I think that any coach here needs to build a program based on Nebraska talent. I don't think the team should be exclusively Nebraskan, of course. I do think the excuses and post facto explanations for the firing are hogwash. People should just admit that they were fired because of agendas by their bosses; we'll know this because, I almost guarantee that if Callahan or Riley match but don't exceed Frank's and Bo's records, they'd be retained by their hirerers (and even TO in the case of BC).

3 and 4 (because those are basically the same). TO is the king of Nebraska football. The man spent about 30 years developing a careful understanding of what works and doesn't work at Nebraska. Is his way the only way? No. But I haven't seen much in the way of convincing arguments justifying changes to his approach. I'm not the only one who feels this way. Scott Frost had a well written op-ed back in the mid-00s that summed it up nicely.

5. No, I don't think that. But I do think that when we look at NU and programs similar to NU in terms of circumstances, the TO approach was the most successful, other run based programs were also successful (e.g., Colorado in the late 80s and early 90s and Snyder at KSU). The ones that tried to follow the lead of the Alabamas, USC and others like them have struggled mightily.

6. By the 90s, the top 30 programs (i.e., the top 3 to 4 programs from each power conference) had all caught NU in terms of training and nutrition philosophies. NU was definitely still Tier 1, but the tier was bigger and separation (i.e., advantage related to it) more narrow. That's all I was saying, and it was in response to someone who wants to dismiss TO's approach as "well, we had so many more advantages back in the 90s than we do now." --- which, by the way, is not a logical argument for abandoning what he discovered, again over 30 years, about how to win in Lincoln.

 

[cm husker]

Correct. Top 30 or so programs. Which is much different than how you framed it. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Okay chief
I think you purposely word your "points" in such a way that they will be taken "incorrectly" just so you have a reason to debate people when they call you out.

It's referred to as nuance. I admit that nuance does allow people who like to deal in extremes to read something into a statement that isn't really there.

There's actually a pretty famous quote about the phenomenon.