BiggerRed

Why is that funny? Name the stakes, and I will be happy to bet you that Rivals will follow suit and bump him up before the end of the year as well.

Two new topics within 7 minutes about Oklahoma State recruiting will do that.

Here are the 5-year recruiting averages for the following Nebraska seasons: 1991 - 16.2 1992 - 17.6 1993 - 16.4 1994 - 18.0 1995 - 17.6 1996 - 13.2 1997 - 14.2 1998 - 14.0 1999 - 13.4 2000 - 14.8 2001 - 15.0 Besides Ohio State (whose average is skewed by a 41st ranked class in 2003 consisting of only 16 commits), none of the other teams mentioned are in double digit averages at any point of the study (even if they weren't listed as a top 10 team). Ohio State promptly dropped into the single digits as soon as 2003 was dropped from the 5 year average as well. Callahan's 3 best classes from 2005-2007 averaged a rank of 12.7. So as you can see, we have never recruited like the teams that everyone keeps mentioning. We will likely never recruit like the teams that everyone keeps mentioning. So now that we have that out of the way, what are your expectations for Nebraska? You keep mentioning how we have to recruit elite talent to compete for championships, and now it has been proven that we have never recruited elite talent like the powerhouses. Look at the number of 5-star recruits each of the teams mentioned have recruited from 2005-2008. Each of the teams that you keep mentioning have nearly double the number that Nebraska has had (over quadruple in the case of USC). Also keep in mind that 2 of Nebraska's 4 5-stars were jucos and one was a legacy that is likely the only 5-star instate recruit we will see in quite some time. So please explain your expectations for Nebraska football, how we will recruit elite talent given our location and that we have never been a consistent top 10 recruiter at any time in recordable history, and what you think Nebraska should do. I am tired of the pessimism over our recruiting. I am tired of those saying we have to have top 10 classes to compete when we have never done so before. Offer some solutions, concede that Nebraska will never be back, or quit going on and on about the same thing.

Instead of just throwing out opinions based on glancing at a top 10 list, let's throw out some actual facts. Here are the AP top 10 rankings for the last 3 years and the 5-year recruiting class average Rivals rank for each team: 2006 1. Florida - 9.2 2. Ohio State - 15.8 3. LSU - 9.4 4. USC - 3.8 5. Boise State - 78.8 6. Louisville - 47.4 7. Wisconsin - 40.8 8. Michigan - 11.4 9. Auburn - 12.2 10. West Virginia - 42.6 2007 1. LSU - 7.2 2. Georgia - 7.0 3. USC - 1.6 4. Missouri - 35.2 5. Ohio State - 17.8 6. West Virginia - 39.8 7. Kansas - 45.2 8. Oklahoma - 7.6 9. Virginia Tech - 28.6 10. Boston College - 36.0 2008 1. Florida - 5.6 2. Utah - 61.2 3. USC - 2.6 4. Texas - 10.8 5. Oklahoma - 8.0 6. Alabama - 11.0 7. TCU - 69.2 8. Penn State - 22.4 9. Ohio State - 10.4 10. Oregon - 23.8 So out of these 3 years, about 57% of the teams averaged a top 20 recruiting class. Exactly 50% averaged a top 15 recruiting class. For the years 2006-2008, here are the top 10 recruiting teams using 5-year averages and the average class rank. Also, included are the team's final AP ranking for the year. 2006 1. USC - 3.8 rca (recruiting class average) - 4th in AP 2. Georgia - 5.8 rca - 23rd in AP 3. Oklahoma - 6.2 rca - 11th in AP 4. Florida State - 6.6 rca - NR in AP 5. Miami - 7.6 rca - NR in AP 6. Florida - 9.2 rca - 1st in AP 7. LSU - 9.4 rca - 3rd in AP 8. Texas - 10.2 rca - 13th in AP 9. Michigan - 11.4 rca - 8th in AP 10. Tennessee - 11.6 rca - 25th in AP 2007 1. USC - 1.6 rca - 3rd in AP 2. Florida - 5.4 rca - 13th in AP 3. Georgia - 7.0 rca - 2nd in AP 4. LSU - 7.2 rca - 1st in AP 5. Oklahoma - 7.6 rca - 8th in AP 6. Miami - 9.8 rca - NR in AP 7. Florida State - 10.0 rca - NR in AP 8. Michigan - 10.6 rca - 18th in AP 9. Texas - 11.0 rca - 10th in AP 10. Tennessee - 11.8 rca - NR in AP 2008 1. USC - 2.6 rca - 3rd in AP 2. Florida - 5.6 rca - 1st in AP 3. Georgia - 7.2 rca - 13th in AP 4. Florida State - 7.6 rca - 21st in AP 5. Oklahoma - 8.0 rca - 5th in AP 6. LSU - 9.2 rca - NR in AP 7. Michigan - 9.2 rca - NR in AP 8. Miami - 9.8 rca - NR in AP 9. Ohio State - 10.4 rca - 9th in AP 10. Texas - 10.8 rca - 4th in AP So using top 20 as the measure, 63% of the top 10 recruiting teams made the top 20. 60% made the top 15. So if 43% of the top 10 teams over the last 3 years have not averaged top 20 recruiting classes, and if 37% of the top 10 recruiting teams have not even been in the final AP top 20; I think some of you are making this correlation out to be a bit stronger than it is and are making it seem like the exceptions are much rarer than they actually are. I know many of you will bring up the point about conference strength, and then discount the fact that Utah beat Alabama. I know that you will talk about how coaching matters as well as recruiting to explain Miami and Florida State, but then discount the job Frank Beamer has done at Virginia Tech. People will see what they want to see. The truth obviously lies somewhere in the middle, but the star gazers will always be such and those that don't think they matter will never care. I actually stand somewhere in the middle, but just find the pessimism of those that think we cannot succeed without highly ranked classes much more annoying than those that think we can win with whoever we recruit.

Rated as a 3 star and ranked as the #75 safety prospect in the nation by Scout.

So we are talking about contending for a national championship? Isn't that a little premature? It took Osborne a decade to seriously contend for a NC, and that is after taking over a squad that had just won one. Pelini is only going into his 2nd year and in his first year took over arguably the worst team in modern Husker history. Our recruiting rankings from 1990-1997 were 10th, 28th, 14th, 18th, 20th, 8th, 6th, and 19th. So we only had top 15 classes half of the years that made up our national championship runs. I don't think we are going to bring in consistent top 15 classes. I have doubts that we will bring in consistent top 20 classes. So either I can hope that we can find a way to win with the talent that we have on hand, or I give up hope. I prefer the first option. Obviously, you think that we can bring in top 15 classes. Perhaps you are right and I certainly hope so, but I think this staff's strengths are player evaluation, development, and coaching - not luring the best talent to Lincoln. Will they grow and improve as recruiters? I think so and I expect us to be in the 20-30 range most years, sometimes lower (this year), sometimes higher (next year if the cards fall in place). Also, you are a star gazer. Admitting this is the first step towards recovery.

Would I like us to have top 5 classes every year? Absolutely. Do I think it's going to happen? No. Why do you think people point out teams like Virginia Tech or the last OU national championship team (average class rating of 26th)? To retain hope, to find ways that it can be done without recruiting like Florida, USC, Texas, or Ohio State. It seems like the star-gazers just complain about our recruiting. I don't know if they've given up hope of the Huskers returning to a national power, think that we will just start recruiting consistent top 10 classes (never has happened, probably never will - 94, 95, and 97 five year class averages were around 17th if I remember correctly), or what.

fixed it for ya Fixed it for the fixer... one would assume that game planning and adjustments are part of coaching..... I would also assume that evaluating would be part of recruiting. IMO, the three keys to a successful team are: 1. Player development 2. Coaching 3. Recruiting The best teams are at least at the highest level in 2 out of the 3 and still perform very well in the third. For example, I would say that Texas is great in player development and recruiting, but merely good to very good in coaching. I would say that Nebraska's teams under Osborne were great in player development and coaching, but good to very good in recruiting. Of course, Florida is great in all 3. I don't know for sure how I would rate Pelini in the 3 phases so far. For one, he's only had one season. For two, his first class hasn't had a chance to make some noise on the field yet. My initial impressions are that he is very good in both player development and coaching and good in recruiting. But like I said, the verdict is still out and likely will be for the next few years.

Only two teams with fewer than 18 commits have been in the top 30 in the last several years (Florida and Ohio State). Being top 30 isn't probable for us this year. And I didn't advocate waiting on kids to blow up to offer as a strategy (out of all that I typed, this is all you pick out?), just that if it looks like the board is thinning that we can still get quality players (and we don't really know what the board looks like anyway). Look, if you want to worry about recruiting, be my guest. If you want to use stars as your measure of a recruits future performance instead of just waiting to see how they perform, again, feel free. We have a season right around the corner that I am excited for. I'm not really concerned about how we may or may not succeed 2-4 years down the road because of a recruiting class that may or may not be ranked high, and regardless of ranking may or may not produce some terrific players for us.

So do you consider a recruiting class to be good if we get "big-time" recruits but they don't do much on the field? IMO, a class should only be evaluated by what they do on the field. Last I knew, recruiting was just part of trying to win football games; not a separate game itself. Do recruiting victories matter if they don't translate to wins? Not to me. It seems like more and more fans would rather see a high ranking in February than one in January.

I have read numerous posts where someone labels Callahan as a good recruiter but a poor coach and I've also seen other posts which mention how Solich's downfall was recruiting. Looking at the classes, I really don't understand this line of thinking. The NFL doesn't just take good players from winning teams. They take whoever they think can help them. From Solich's final three classes, Nebraska had 11 NFL draft picks, 8 of these in the first 4 rounds. Heck, from the 2002 class alone we had 3 go in the first 4 rounds. In all of Callahan's classes, 3 players have been drafted, 1 in the 1st 4 rounds. In Callahan's 2005 class, 28% of the class had listed offers from big-time programs (Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, etc.). In 2003, 32% of Solich's class had listed offers from these same big-time programs. In all of Callahan's classes, 8 players have received at least 2nd team all-conference recognition. Solich's 2002 class had 7 by itself. Perhaps most telling, Callahan was able to win while he still had a good chunk of players from Solich's classes. So if Callahan's players haven't proven anything, how do we know that he recruited well? As I have shown, it's not the other offers. It's not conference awards. It's not NFL draft picks. What does that leave, the stars? The measurables? If the only real evidence of Callahan's superior recruiting over Solich is the ranking we receive by the recruiting services or the 40 time that they list, is that really proof? Perhaps in the coming years, players from the 2006-2007 classes will really emerge. I hope so. Until then, can we at least hold off on freaking out because we aren't recruiting like Callahan. That may not be such a bad thing.

All we have for lists of offers is what Scout and Rivals have compiled. Do you think the coaches are letting the services know who we have offered? Of course not. The recruiting sites are relying on information from recruits, their high school coaches, and their families. I would guess that many recruits' offer lists are neither comprehensive nor accurate. Believe it or not, not every kid likes talking to Jeremy Crabtree on a weekly basis to let him know what they are thinking. So many posters seem to think that our coaches' recruiting board is static, that if recruit A received an offer before recruit B that recruit A is obviously higher on the board. New tape, new evaluations, and their senior seasons (which haven't even started yet) will result in a lots of movement on the board. Some player that we haven't even offered yet may be at the top of the board by the end of October, and not just because others have gone elsewhere but because he is absolutely blowing up. It happens every year. Players emerge out of nowhere during their senior seasons and others who looked like great prospects in the summer fade away. Really, I doubt that anyone here has a list of every recruit on our coaches recruiting board or the order of preference. All we have are speculation and assumptions. My suggestion is to relax. Let things play out and see how our class looks in February. Or, if you really want to let things play out, see how the class looks in 2012 or 2013 when the players have actually had a chance to make an impact. I think our 40th ranked 2002 class has had more impact players than any class since (at this point). Our 2004 class which was basically thrown together formed a decent sized-chunk of our offense over the past several years. Either our coaches recruiting strategy will work, they will adapt, or they will be replaced. Simple as that.

Works both ways. That glass isn't half empty, it's half full.

Yeah you have to think that is the case. I do like how rivals list NU as HIGH interest and every other school is medium or low. Obviously this doesn't include the latest development with Wheeler committing to Okie State. HI has talked to Vestal after Wheeler announced. Sounds like he has definitive plans and a decision date. I don't have a subscription or anything, but my initial impression from reading the brief snippet was that we are in the drivers seat. Guess we'll find out soon enough.

You are getting way too upset about this. From 2006-2009 (two Callahan classes and two Pelini classes), we have gotten exactly two Rivals top 100 prospects - Niles Paul and Baker Steinkuhler. It's not like we were raking in top 100 prospects under Callahan, except for in 2005. With Andrew Rodriguez already verballed, we are ahead of the curve in top 100 prospects.

To be fair, one of those is a senior season highlight video. The other is a promotional video for a team filmed mainly over just a couple of games. Remember, the coaches didn't offer based on his junior season film - they offered based on his performance at camp working with both Gilmore and Sanders.

It's about developing relationships in recruiting. When School A sends you handwritten letters from coaches each week and consistently calls you while School B infrequently does either, who are you more likely to be attracted to? That is the thing that absolutely doomed Frankie. He was infrequent with contact and only wanted to turn up the heat on prospects after the final regular season game. During the year, he wanted nothing to do with recruiting. Thus why our recruiting was constantly average or below because we played catchup on so many prospects. In today recruiting world, it is even worse with so many other forms of communication that can constantly be used. You slack off for a minute and other schools will pounce in an instance. I will say this, people are in love with Bo for his coaching abilities and rightfully so. However, Bo, as well as the rest of this staff need to go to the Callahan school of recruiting to learn how tireless you need to be in recruiting. While Callahan was not the coach Bo is, if you put BC vs Bo in a recruiting battle, BC would run circles around Bo. If only we had a mix of Bo and Callahan, we would have a superstar coach. And for those thinking our recruiting is not in bad shape - I will say it is. When it gets to the point that Bryan Munson, who has friends on the staff will go out of his way to say something is wrong, it is likely even worse than he lets on. Other 'insiders' have quietly and lightly thrown it out there to the public. If you still don't believe it, just read the updates from recruiting sites. How many times have you saw a recruit talk about how he wants to get in touch with Nebraska or how a coach missed a call or talks about infrequent contact. It has been a quite common theme in updates this year and that is troubling. Compare that to how many times you see a kid mention that about another school. It just doesn't happen. But like Munson said, the complete blame does not go to the staff. Quite a few people on the support staff need their equal share of the blame as well. People underestimate how much work they put in as well to make sure things go smoothly for the coaches with as little confusion as possible. So assuming at least some of the concerns are real, which of the following is accurate: 1. Bo doesn't think there is a problem. 2. Bo is doing something to correct this. I thought about adding Bo doesn't care or Bo doesn't know, but they don't really sound like realistic choices.

That's exactly what he just did. I'd actually say that you can't deny we're in essentially the same shape recruiting-wise as we have been for the past 5 years. It's too bad you think this class will be below average. I think we won't rank highly by the rating services (which I don't care about but some do), but that will be because we will have a small class not because we don't have good players. Following recruiting and college football is for entertainment purposes only - relax and enjoy the ride. But he didn't. He didn't take into account the fact that recruits are tending to commit earlier every year, leaving us with much fewer options than in those years (come to think of it, he's a prime specimen for government service with his misleading statistics). Why does it bother you that I think this year's class will be below average? I don't understand when people say, "we don't need 4/5 star recruits." That's true if we want to be perpetually a 9-4 team at best. And if this class is ranked low, it will be because we don't have "good players." The fact is, those top 10 classes simply do have better players, although that's not to say that I won't get excited about them and welcome them aboard. They could have better careers than higher-ranked players, but they probably won't. That's just being rational and realistic. Take off the rose-colored glasses for a moment and it becomes clear. There are a lot of people wondering why we can't attract recruits with all of our top notch facilities and amazing tradition. All of those aspects are secondary to the prospect of being on a winning/championship quality team. That's why Florida, Alabama, LSU have such great recruiting. So as I see it, once we start winning, the recruits will come. I have no issue with anyone who cares to simply "relax and enjoy the ride." Just because I see things as they are doesn't make me any less of a fan, some people are just incapable of doing so, perhaps for the better. And as far as the "doom and glooom," please. It makes me sad that this board is little more than one person bringing up an issue and then everyone else bemoaning the fact that "that's all people ever talk about." That is my objective assesment, agree or disagree. Fact #1: The number one reason why most recruits choose a school is because of location. Fact #2: The most high school talent in the country is concentrated in Florida, California, Texas, and Ohio. Fact #3: The teams that everyone keeps mentioning are either in one of these states or border one of these states. Fact #4: Nebraska does not border Texas. Conclusion: Quit mentioning USC, Florida, Texas, OU, Ohio State, or LSU when talking about recruiting to Nebraska.

Again, you lack context. Those same 60 kids rejected tons of other schools. The nature of recruiting dictates there will be more losers than winners. And frankly, these recruiting services are bunk anyway. Kids get extra stars for committing to USC or LSU or Texas simply because they're USC or LSU or Texas. We're building a program here. You ever heard the phrase "Rome wasn't built overnight?" Chill out. It's OK. Actually, tons of offers go out before the initial ratings are released from the recruiting services. By the time Rivals gets around to rating kids, they already have a nice base of offers to look at to determine the pecking order. One only needs to look at Shawn Bodtmann to realize the failures of the recruiting services. Right before he was released by Nebraska, Rivals bumped him from a 5.5 3-star to a 5.6 3-star. He moved up in the Pennsylvania state rankings ahead of an offensive lineman who was committed to Penn State and had a Michigan offer. After he was released, no division I school was interested and he signed with Maine.

Agreed. If he were a legit 4.4 he would be running a 10.15 - 10.2 hundred meters and would be the track star of the state. Nebraska may produce one athlete per 5 years that runs a legit, electronic 4.40. Of course, the number per year that report a 4.4 is quite high. They lie. An electronic 4.40 is rare --- even in the NFL. Certainly the average WR in the NFL does not run an electronic 4.40. This young man is quite more likely an electronic 4.65 or so. And, as it were, that is pretty fast. A guy over at the HI free board claims to know for a fact that at one of the camps he ran a 4.51 electronic 40. I would guess that the 4.48 certainly is believable then.

I believe the 4.48 was electronically timed on field turf at Nebraska's camp this summer. So no, he doesn't run like Jeremy Maclin . . . he is eight hundredths of a second slower.

What do you mean by "pan out"? Only about 50% of any given recruiting class will start more than a few games during their careers.

Don't you think signing day is a little too early to determine whether a class is a bust?

I would think a commit would be a good thing. I would also think that a sh#t storm would be a bad thing. Must be a lower rated guy like Tyler Evans. Tell me if I'm warm . . . What? I heard he may be very close to an offer.

I would think a commit would be a good thing. I would also think that a sh#t storm would be a bad thing. Must be a lower rated guy like Tyler Evans. Tell me if I'm warm . . .