If all things were equal, I'd agree with you.
But all things are decidedly not equal.
Recruiting grades
- Thread starter HuskerNation1
- Start date
But all things are decidedly not equal.
HuskermanMike
Starter
I was thinking of a grade like you did at first making c. I realized it was too easy to give us that high of a grade. IMO outside top 60 is an F. It can go down the list from there. Top 25 class deserves a B and top 30 a b- so I would give this class a B. One or two spots higher and I would say it could be closer to a B+. but a solid B is fair for this class.
How about you go power 5 conferences and add in Notre Dame and take the top 5 schools from each power 5 and Nebraska should be somewhere in there. Probably higher honestly.
Making Chimichangas
Banned
So is seeing you naked.BigRedN said:
Saying that a recruiting class ranked 40 and lower is an "F" is what's "humorous."
You do realize that Wisconsin has been literally dominating Nebraska since we entered the Big 10?
While schools like Northwestern, Purdue, and Illinois among others, give us all we can handle every year.
And, the Badgers have been doing it recruiting classes from 2011-2017 have averaged 44th nationally.
A supposed "F" according to you extremely intelligent fellas.
Wisconsin's 2017 class is rated 35th by rivals.com
Wisconsin's 2016 class is rated 35th by rivals.com
Wisconsin's 2015 class is rated 44th by rivals.com
Wisconsin's 2014 class is rated 33rd by rivals.com
Wisconsin's 2013 class is rated 54th by rivals.com
Wisconsin's 2012 class is rated 60th by rivals.com
Wisconsin's 2011 class is rated 41st by rivals.com
Want to rethink your grading system?
Because I think this notion you and others are putting out that any recruiting class 40th or lower is an "F" is completely absurd.
Last edited by a moderator:
Making Chimichangas
Banned
So you're saying that Wisconsin has been dominating us since 2011 with consistently rated "F" classes? Seems legit.
HuskermanMike
Starter
I don't think thy are saying Wisconsin's recruiting is necessarily bad, rather if Nebraska recruited at that number it would be an F. That is what I am taking what they are saying. I have no problem with your class rankings as it is your opinion, I feel like if it is top 25 for Nebraska it is good. We need some big boy classes also with rankings in the top 15 and sometimes a top 10 class. I think classes 16-25 are fairly similar if you look at it from a broader view, but any class in the top 15 is elite and they separate themselves with each ranking.
Last edited by a moderator:
Making Chimichangas
Banned
HuskermanMike said: I don't think thy are saying Wisconsin's recruiting is necessarily and , rather if Nebraska recruited at that number it would be an F. That is what I am taking what they are saying. I have no problem with your class rankings as it is your opinion, I feel like if it is top 25 for Nebraska it is good. We need some big boy classes also with rankings in the top 15 and sometimes a top 10 class. I think classes 16-25 are fairly similar if you look at it from a broader view, but any class in the top 15 is elite and they separate themselves with each ranking.
No, guys like bnilhome are saying that a recruiting class rank of 35 or lower is an F.
And that is patently, blatantly, obviously, completely absurd.
Further, unless I misread it, there was no qualification that "if Nebraska's class is 35th or lower, it is an F."
And, even if the supposition that Nebraska's class, ranked 35th or lower is an F, then it logically follows that every other school with a class rated lower than 35 is also an F. Which makes zero sense.
I am not here suggesting that Nebraska shouldn't strive for consistent top 15 classes, because that's exactly what we should be striving for.
However, to suggest that any class rated 35th or lower is an F, meaning a total failure, doesn't hold up under any legit scrutiny.
No, guys like bnilhome are saying that a recruiting class rank of 35 or lower is an F.
And that is patently, blatantly, obviously, completely absurd.
Further, unless I misread it, there was no qualification that "if Nebraska's class is 35th or lower, it is an F."
And, even if the supposition that Nebraska's class, ranked 35th or lower is an F, then it logically follows that every other school with a class rated lower than 35 is also an F. Which makes zero sense.
I am not here suggesting that Nebraska shouldn't strive for consistent top 15 classes, because that's exactly what we should be striving for.
However, to suggest that any class rated 35th or lower is an F, meaning a total failure, doesn't hold up under any legit scrutiny.
DrunkOffPunch
Starter
It does if you go case by case instead of a broad generalization. UTEP had the 131st ranked class according to 247. It's safe to assume anything better than 75th would be an absolutely astounding class and an A+ by their standards. That doesn't mean 75th or better for any other team would be an A+.
Making Chimichangas
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:
DrunkOffPunch
Starter
Care to defend your post instead of trying to make a clever quip?
Making Chimichangas
Banned
Nebfanatic
All-American
I agree with Drunk Off Punch here. In theory you are correct Making Chimichangas, but recruiting success is relative to situation. For example, UCF had a great recruiting class this year, they finished 58th I believe. If we recruited 58th we would be like 8th in the BIG or worse. UCF had the best recruiting class in their conference. That is an A for them. Would you consider 58 an A for us?
Making Chimichangas
Banned
If Nebraska had the 58th rated class, that would be a C+ class.
I'll ask again: If we take the notion that any recruiting class below 40 is an F...
Then does that mean that since 2011 Wisconsin has been kicking our collective arses up and down the field, every single year, with consistently "F" rated classes?
I would love for someone to address this question without moving the goalposts.
And remember that Northwestern, Purdue, Illinois, and Iowa (whom we've supposedly out-recruited by a wide margin every single year) consistently play us tough and down to the wire every year.
Or, could all you guys just admit that the level of separation from a class rated 20th to a class rated 11th is a matter of perception? Naw, you wouldn't do that...cause seeing all those stars nest to recruits names are pretty.
I am not saying we shouldn't recruit the best talent out there, but you guys take opinion (recruiting rankings) and state them as absolute fact.
Doesn't ring any "alarm bells" when recruiting analysts say you could, in a given year, swap the #10 team for the #1 team? I mean seriously, these rankings are nothing close to absolute.
Last edited by a moderator: