This is all very true. There are definitely valid concerns about our recruiting methods, and we whiffed on a couple guys that we could really have used (Fuller & Peat). I'm not talking about those valid criticisms, I'm talking about the "world is ending" over-the-top nonsense.
Your post intrigues me, but is pretty vague. Please explain said process of cultivating a solid arboretum. What went wrong in the last planting season. I would like to banter with ya, but give me a not so watered down explanation.
I haven't been here on this site long enough to get a sense of what people have said about this year's class. But some of the negative posts I've read on other supposed Nebraska sites regarding this year's class are the equivalent of toxic manure. In fairness the extremely negative types of posts are thankfully a small percentage compared to the overall aggregate.
Since I haven't heard a single word in regards to average stars (because then we'd rank 23rd) - which was all we heard last year (which admittedly that class is looking better than I originally thought) - I thought I'd bring the discussion up. Personally I like this year's class WAY more than last years. What do you guys think? I'm a numbers guy. More players, more potential, better team. I haven't been happy w/ Bo's roster management. It's looking better now that we've got that 2008 class of 100% redshirts out the door though.People are upset about the rankings regarding a lower number of players...but when you figure 40-50% of recruits usually don't pan out...regardless of stars wouldn't you rather have a class of 25, than a class of 17? At 17 we have 8-9 that might crack the 2-deep. At 25 we'd have 12-13. That's 4-5 more quality players. That's the basis behind the benifits to oversigning. It's also the reason why a smaller class (regardless of average stars) is going to be ranked lower...because it should be ranked lower!
As much as they didn't work out in Nebraska's favor this year...the rankings pretty accurately portray the level of a class. Next year all of you "average stars" people are going to be talking about how highly ranked of a class we have with little regard to the stars (because they'll be down from this year) when we sign 25-28 guys. Then stars won't matter it's quantity. But I bet we get more into the 2-deep from next years class than this years. Just whatever fits your argument I guess.
(and Cincinnati signed 28, 25 of them 3*s and still found themselves at 49th).
I've really payed a lot more attention to recruiting this year. One thing I've quickly learned is that star numbers and rankings "can" be the most manipulated bunch of bs there is. Not all the time, but some of the time, which leads you to wonder how much of an agenda by the pubs there actually is. The Carter (TE) thing was intriguing. Didnt he gain a star when LSU came calling, and then one pub actually took the star back away when he re affirmed his committment. Didnt Finnin's ranking go up a bit when Urban Meyer came calling? Yes, there has to be talent, but there also has to be development as well. Ole Miss is possible going to get the top 3 players in the country, but I'll bet they still have to fight like hell to make a bowl game over the next 4 years-as usual. It's a two-way street with this recruiting thing. That's for damn sure.Since I haven't heard a single word in regards to average stars (because then we'd rank 23rd) - which was all we heard last year (which admittedly that class is looking better than I originally thought) - I thought I'd bring the discussion up. Personally I like this year's class WAY more than last years. What do you guys think? I'm a numbers guy. More players, more potential, better team. I haven't been happy w/ Bo's roster management. It's looking better now that we've got that 2008 class of 100% redshirts out the door though.People are upset about the rankings regarding a lower number of players...but when you figure 40-50% of recruits usually don't pan out...regardless of stars wouldn't you rather have a class of 25, than a class of 17? At 17 we have 8-9 that might crack the 2-deep. At 25 we'd have 12-13. That's 4-5 more quality players. That's the basis behind the benifits to oversigning. It's also the reason why a smaller class (regardless of average stars) is going to be ranked lower...because it should be ranked lower!
As much as they didn't work out in Nebraska's favor this year...the rankings pretty accurately portray the level of a class. Next year all of you "average stars" people are going to be talking about how highly ranked of a class we have with little regard to the stars (because they'll be down from this year) when we sign 25-28 guys. Then stars won't matter it's quantity. But I bet we get more into the 2-deep from next years class than this years. Just whatever fits your argument I guess.
(and Cincinnati signed 28, 25 of them 3*s and still found themselves at 49th).
Interesting thoughts. I have always been more of a person who looks at who offers more than stars, but I also tend to look at ave stars more than class rank. I did a bunch of analysis on ave star rank and class rank vs. BCS bowls that I have posted before. I am intrigued by the recent attrition discussion, a point I know you are passionate about, so I may have to dig those numbers out and figure out how to account for attrition plus unplanned production, walk ons, transfers, etc.Since I haven't heard a single word in regards to average stars (because then we'd rank 23rd) - which was all we heard last year (which admittedly that class is looking better than I originally thought) - I thought I'd bring the discussion up. Personally I like this year's class WAY more than last years. What do you guys think? I'm a numbers guy. More players, more potential, better team. I haven't been happy w/ Bo's roster management. It's looking better now that we've got that 2008 class of 100% redshirts out the door though.People are upset about the rankings regarding a lower number of players...but when you figure 40-50% of recruits usually don't pan out...regardless of stars wouldn't you rather have a class of 25, than a class of 17? At 17 we have 8-9 that might crack the 2-deep. At 25 we'd have 12-13. That's 4-5 more quality players. That's the basis behind the benifits to oversigning. It's also the reason why a smaller class (regardless of average stars) is going to be ranked lower...because it should be ranked lower!
As much as they didn't work out in Nebraska's favor this year...the rankings pretty accurately portray the level of a class. Next year all of you "average stars" people are going to be talking about how highly ranked of a class we have with little regard to the stars (because they'll be down from this year) when we sign 25-28 guys. Then stars won't matter it's quantity. But I bet we get more into the 2-deep from next years class than this years. Just whatever fits your argument I guess.
(and Cincinnati signed 28, 25 of them 3*s and still found themselves at 49th).
