BiggerRed

So what's it mean "to compete with the likes of UT or OU on a consistant basis"? Here's the last few years against OU: 28-62 7-21 24-31 And UT: 25-28 20-22 We haven't beaten either team recently, but that's not what you said. And I think we have competed well except for last year against OU. How much is coaching or talent or desire going to change those scores? Nobody knows. But to simply say that "effort kids" cannot get it done as a blanket statement is, at best, closed-minded. Tom Osborne tried to get it done with just effort players. Then realized he needed to go get a Tommie Frazier and a Lawrence Phillips to get over that hump. Even with scholarship limitations which is 25 per year, (I could be wrong about that) there still is enough talent that comes out of Texas and California to go around. So in a way, the limitation rule works in our favor. Winning the Big 12 and being in contention for a NC go hand in hand. I didn't say winning the Big 12. I said being in the title game, so in essence winning the North. Also, I'm not sure how you propose we compete with the national powerhouses when your solution is picking through their leftovers. I stand by that we need to do things a little differently. If we just follow what the others do but don't do it quite as well, more often than not we will come in behind them.

You can be a consistently winning program without top 20 recruiting classes. NC contenders this decade tend to recruit at the highest levels, but they have also been in one of the big-4 talent states (OSU, Florida, USC, Texas) or border Texas (OU and LSU). We have neither advantage. There are also no more prop-48 recruits and there are NCAA imposed staff limitations and scholarship restrictions. I love how everyone complaining about recruiting think that the coaches can just "do better", like it's easy to convince a 17 year old Longhorn fan from Houston to choose Nebraska. We are not going to beat Texas or OU at their own game. The deck is stacked in their favor. We need to find a new way to compete, like Osborne did with the walk-on program and tailoring his offense to take advantage of homegrown talent. Pelini also needs time to figure out what this way is. Perhaps instead of thinking future NC's, we should be thinking more about returning to a consistent winner and Big XII title game mainstay. It took Osborne a decade before we were really in the NC discussion. Why the hurry for Pelini?

If we end up with a class of kids who aren't afraid of competition or hard work, is that such a bad thing? I know everyone is worked up about star ratings and who we beat out for this recruit or that recruit, but waiting to see how this approach manifests itself on the field in 2-3 years makes sense to me. It wouldn't be bad. But "effort kids" aren't going to be able to beat OU and Texas. Wake Forest is full of "effort kids". Their Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 77, 57, 95, 65, 75, 89, 58 Florida State's Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 4, 21, 3, 2, 3, 21, 9 There is no way that Wake Forest has won the head-to-head the last three years in a row, right? I would like to think that our expectations as Husker Nation are a bit higher than Wake Forest's. The ACC is sorry. And as far as FSU goes, Bobby Bowden expired at least 4 years ago. So what are you arguing about exactly, coaching talent or recruiting standards. You say that the current class isn't going very well and that "effort" kids can't beat OU or UT, I take the second statement to mean that you don't think that the Top 30 classes the staff has pulled in over the last couple of years isn't good enough to beat OU and UT simply because they don't have enough talent in them. I think Biggerred just debunked your theory. He is showing that one of the best recruiting schools around, FSU, is putting a ton more talent on the field yet getting beat 3 straight years in a row by a well coached team full of "effort" players. So if I posted the recruiting rankings of all of the schools that have competed for the BCS Championship within the last 7 years, does that debunk his theory?? It's a combo of having a good coach and getting good recruits. That's what USC, OU, UT, UF, OSU have in common. That's why they are always in the conversation. I think that Nebraska has a very good coach. But with having a good coach and bringing in mediocre recruits, your program will look like a Mizzou or TTech where you are in the spotlight one year out of 8-10 years and you are spending the rest rebuilding. Good coach with good recruiting equals reloading instead of rebuilding. Good recruits with bad coaching, we have seen ourselves where that leads to. I have no theory for you to debunk. You typed that effort kids aren't going to be able to beat OU or Texas, and you were shown that effort kids can beat both recruiting and national powerhouses. No where did anyone state that effort kids were going to make up the next national powerhouse.

If we end up with a class of kids who aren't afraid of competition or hard work, is that such a bad thing? I know everyone is worked up about star ratings and who we beat out for this recruit or that recruit, but waiting to see how this approach manifests itself on the field in 2-3 years makes sense to me. It wouldn't be bad. But "effort kids" aren't going to be able to beat OU and Texas. Wake Forest is full of "effort kids". Their Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 77, 57, 95, 65, 75, 89, 58 Florida State's Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 4, 21, 3, 2, 3, 21, 9 There is no way that Wake Forest has won the head-to-head the last three years in a row, right?

If we end up with a class of kids who aren't afraid of competition or hard work, is that such a bad thing? I know everyone is worked up about star ratings and who we beat out for this recruit or that recruit, but waiting to see how this approach manifests itself on the field in 2-3 years makes sense to me.

It's all relative. Nebraska's population is about 5% of California's. California produced approximately 150 high school football players who signed with BCS conference teams last year alone. All other things being equal, one would assume that Nebraska should have produced 7-8 BCS school commits last year. There were 4. I would argue that the percentage should be higher than California's because of the popularity of football in the state and the accessibility of high schoolers to actually be able to make a team and play. And to answer you question, if I were a college coach I would first look for players in my own backyard.

In 2003, Matt was a 1st team all-conference selection by either the coaches or the AP and a 2nd teamer by the other (can't remember which). He was a Mackey award semi-finalist, so was essentially one of the 8 best tight-ends in the country that year. He was all-conference honorable mention by both services in 2004. We haven't taken many skill position players since the 2003 class through, but Todd Peterson did well for us over the last couple of years even though he wasn't recognized as all-conference. I think that there are certainly good enough athletes in Nebraska to at least fill a couple more ships a year. I don't think the talent is nearly as developed though (especially those from smaller towns), and it takes someone with an incredibly good eye for projecting what a player will be like 2-3 years down the road after proper development. T.O. was a master at this, and looks to still be. From all accounts, while many thought Kreikemeier was a marginal prospect at best it appears that he has practiced well enough to likely contribute this year and perhaps do much more than that in the future.

Looking at some old recruiting lists, I was amazed at the number of players from the state of Nebraska that we took in each recruiting class. Here are the classes I looked at and the number of players from Nebraska divided by the total recruiting class size (I also included some recruiting class rankings where I could find them): 1980 - 11/25 = 44% 1981 - 9/26 = 35% 1982 - 11/28 = 39% 1983 - 9/22 = 41% 1984 - 6/17 = 35% 1985 - 7/25 = 28% 1986 - 8/20 = 40% 1987 - 8/22 = 36% - SuperPrep #7 1988 - 4/26 = 15% - SuperPrep #24 1989 - 3/23 = 13% - SuperPrep #12 1990 - 7/20 = 35% - SuperPrep #10 1991 - 5/22 = 23% - SuperPrep #28 1992 - 9/24 = 38% - SuperPrep #14 1993 - 7/21 = 33% - SuperPrep #18 1994 - 3/21 = 14% - SuperPrep #20 1995 - 8/28 = 29% - SuperPrep #8 1996 - 5/18 = 28% - SuperPrep #6 1997 - 6/22 = 27% - SuperPrep #19 1998 - 9/21 = 43% - SuperPrep #17 1999 - 7/22 = 32% - SuperPrep #17 2000 - 6/21 = 29% - SuperPrep #15 2001 - 5/19 = 26% - SuperPrep #7 2002 - 7/18 = 39% - Rivals #40 2003 - 5/19 = 26% - Rivals #42 2004 - 5/18 = 28% - Rivals #27 2005 - 3/31 = 10% - Rivals #5 2006 - 4/24 = 17% - Rivals #20 2007 - 3/28 = 11% - Rivals #13 2008 - 6/28 = 21% - Rivals #30 2009 - 2/21 = 10% - Rivals #28 So has Nebraska's talent pool actually shrunk, or are players being overlooked? Osborne and Solich's recruiting classes contained players from such towns as Cambridge, Hershey, Ewing, Lisco, Henderson, Battle Creek, Dewitt, Winnebago, Indianola, Atkinson, Wausa, Hyannis, Duncan, Wood River, Hartington, Farwell, Fort Calhoun, Tecumseh, Laurel, and Yutan. The only small town scholarship player since 2002 has been Micah Kreikemeier who was offered by T.O. (depending on your definition of small town, some of you would probably include Jared Crick as well). It is hard for me to believe that the talent is down that far from the 17th ranked 1998 class of which 43% was from the state of Nebraska. Is it a function of the rise in popularity of Rivals and Scout, who place so much emphasis on camp performances and surely have never seen most of the kids outside of the metro play? Perhaps as the Huskers have slipped, so has the interest of Nebraska kids in football. I know that there are some who would rather not offer any kids from Nebraska except the annual 4-star player and try to get them all to walk-on. Personally, I think that if we could fill 25% of our classes with quality players from instate, that would benefit the Huskers by generating more excitement among Nebraska high-school players and allow the coaches to concentrate their focus on fewer out-of-state targets. I can just imagine the message board meltdowns though if Pelini were to offer (just as an example) Tyler Evans, Ron Coleman, and Jesse Hinz in addition to Andrew Rodriguez this year. What is your take?

I swore to myself a long time ago that I wasn't going to get worked up over the whims of a 17 year old kid. This has done wonders for my off-season blood pressure. If Keeston chooses to go elsewhere, so be it. From 2002-2005, we had 22 4-star commits and only 9 of them had 10 or more career stars, so chances are 50/50 this kid would have even started. Not odds that merit a meltdown, IMO. As for the coaches, I have read the message board posts about their "summer slacking". I really have no way of knowing if these rumors are true or not. Regardless, they will either find ways to win with the players that they bring in or we will be going through another coaching change in 4 or 5 years. I think that we would all like these guys to succeed so that we don't have to endure another 2007, but if they don't do what they need to win it will be they who suffer the biggest repercussions. Me complaining on message boards isn't going to do anything and switching allegiances isn't an option, so all I can do is support the team and hope for the best. No point getting worked up over something that I have no control over. Meanwhile, I can't help but chuckle while I imagine certain posters over at Huskersillustrated feverishly typing about how our coaches aren't working hard enough while they keep glancing over their shoulders to make sure their bosses aren't coming. Ahhhh, irony.

The better question is "How has the Big XII done since 2002?" since the measuring stick for the statistics was set at all-conference recognition. Regardless, here are the SuperPrep rankings for our classes from 1998-2001: 1998 - 17th 1999 - 17th 2000 - 15th 2001 - 7th 4 year average = 14th According to the recruiting rankings, we should have been much better in 2002 than we were. Here are the Rivals rankings for 2003-2006: 2003 - 42nd 2004 - 27th 2005 - 5th 2006 - 20th 4 year average = 24th Again, we should have been much better than we were in 2007 going purely off recruiting rankings. In fact, I believe the per star average of our 2007 defensive starters was higher than the per star average of the 2007 defensive starters for LSU.

I think some of you are misinterpreting the statistics. While it is true that we had more 3-star 1st and 2nd teamers partially because we had many more 3-star commits during this time period, the percentage of 3-star 1st and 2nd teamers divided by the total number of 3 star recruits during this period is greater than the percentage of 1st and 2nd team 4-star recruits divided by the total number of 4-star recruits during this period (which is what the statistics represent, sorry if that wasn't clear). The statistics don't lie - the 3-star players from these classes clearly outperformed the 4-stars using all-conference 1st and 2nd team recognition as the measure. Also, I'm not picking out specific examples as many are apt to do that want to discount stars (which isn't my intention). I am looking at every commit for Nebraska from 2002 to 2005 (from the start of the Rivals database until the year that most players have used up their eligibility). I look forward to seeing how these statistics change over the next several years. Some like to discount the star system and focus on who else has offered as a measure of a recruit's potential. If the example above isn't good enough, look at all of the recruits from the 2003 class with "major" offers: Steve Craver - OU Donald DeFrand - Tennessee David Dyches - Ohio State Chris Patrick - Penn State Ryan Schuler - Oklahoma Brandon Teamer - Notre Dame My point is that there is no real yardstick for guaranteeing future success based on recruiting results alone, unless you happen to be USC, Texas, or Florida where you have rosters full of 5-star Parade all-Americans. For every LSU or OU that proves the point of the star-chasers, there is a Florida State or Miami that casts doubt on the whole system. For every underachiever, there are also teams that consistently outperform their recruiting rankings like Virginia Tech or Oregon. Would I like to recruit like the big boys? Sure I would, but it isn't likely to happen for a variety of reasons. While the most recent statistics point to great recruiting as the key to getting to a national championship game, there are plenty of other examples that show that you don't need consistent top 10 classes to be a consistent and winning program. For now, that is all I ask of this staff and our players. We need to return to the Huskers of the late 80's and very early 90's before we can ever dream of the mid-90's again.

Looking back at the 2002-2005 recruiting classes, I broke down the total number of players in each star grouping that have received post-season all-conference recognition by either the coaches or the AP. I separated the recruits into three groups: those receiving at least one honorable mention during their careers (so this would include 2nd and 1st team award winners as well), those receiving at least one 2nd team award, and those receiving at least one 1st team award. This system certainly isn't perfect, as one could make pretty good cases that neither Dane Todd nor Bo Ruud should have received 1st team recognition. I'm not here to judge the merits of the players or the awards themselves though, and for every player that possibly should not have been included, there are others who probably should have. During these four years, we received the following number of commits (all information regarding stars and offers is from Rivals): 5 stars - 3 4 stars - 22 3 stars - 43 2 stars - 19 1 star (not rated) - 5 Here are the percentages of each star group receiving at least one all-conference honorable mention award during their careers: 5 stars - 66.7% 4 stars - 36.4% 3 stars - 30.2% 2 stars - 10.5% 1 star - 40% Here are the percentages of each star group receiving at least one all-conference second team award: 5 stars - 66.7% 4 stars - 13.6% 3 stars - 18.6% 2 stars - 0.0% 1 star - 20.0% And last but not least, here are the percentages of each star group receiving at least one all-conference first team award: 5 stars - 33.3% 4 stars - 9.1% 3 stars - 11.6% 2 stars - 0.0% 1 star - 0.0% The sample sizes for both the 5 stars and the 1 stars are pretty small, so keep that in mind when processing the numbers. While the 4 star group had a larger percentage receiving at least all-conference honorable mention, the 3 star group had a higher percentage of impact players (both 2nd and 1st teamers). So who did we beat out for these future all-Big XII'ers? Here are the 2nd and 1st team players and other listed offers: Adam Carriker - Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State Matt Herian - Iowa State Kurt Mann - Iowa State Jay Moore - Iowa, Iowa State Dane Todd - Duke DeMorrio Williams - No listed offers Bo Ruud - No listed offers Corey McKeon - Purdue, South Carolina, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin Brandon Jackson - West Virginia, Memphis, Mississippi State Marlon Lucky - Oregon State, USC, Washington, Florida Matt Slauson - Oklahoma State, Oregon State Ndamukong Suh - Oregon State, California, Miami, Mississippi State Zac Taylor - Marshall, North Texas, Troy, Memphis IMO, only Suh and Lucky had offers from big-time programs; with McKeon, Slauson, Carriker, and Jackson having offers from second tier programs. Interestingly, almost 40% of these players were from the state of Nebraska. Also, only one player that walked on between 2002 and 2005 received all-conference recognition during his career (Stewart Bradley - not included in calculations). So take from this what you will. It just reinforces to me that recruiting is an inexact science, and gives me an initial impression that as long as we're pulling in three stars or better, we should be all right. It will be interesting to see how these numbers change in the coming years.

He still has a semester left of high school. He can't very well live on campus until he enrolls (and don't forget - qualifies) for college.

Got a camera phone? Until I see an official announcement or some form of legitimate proof, I agree with X.

My list was for 2010 prospects, or players that were juniors this last season. The list does not include seniors (Tyrone Seller's class) or any other underclassmen.

Jonny's mom used to post at a different message board. The family are all lifelong Husker fans. They were hoping that an offer would materialize for Jonny's older brother, Jimmy, but he ended up going to San Diego State. I believe that he was in the 2008 class. If a Husker offer ends up in the Miller's mailbox, I would be very surprised if Jonny doesn't commit soon after. I would guess that one reason they are looking at A&M is a certain GA on staff down there.

If we offer, I'm fairly sure he's N.

It's a definite need (even though I only count 1 DT leaving after 2009 and 1 in 2010) as another D-lineman was part of the wish list for the 2009 class. How good is Hinz (or Uher and Coleman for that matter)? My guess is the coaches will wait until getting a look at them in camp against a good OL before any of those guys are offered. I didn't watch the Class B state title game last year, but if Hinz went up against Rodriguez there is probably plenty of tape for the coaches to disect.

Coleman is a great HS player, but his size hurts him at the next level. Where do you put him? If only he were a few inches taller . . . As for my guesses, I think that Hinz will receive a Nebraska offer. I think that Daniels, Mizaur, Uher, and Coleman all have a chance to earn an offer IF they really impress the coaches at the NU camp this summer. The rest are probably longshots at best unless they really explode their senior seasons.

I am certainly no expert and someone like BigWillie could probably do a better job, but here is a quick and dirty top 11 for 2010 Nebraska players: 1. Andrew Rodriguez - OL - Aurora 2. Jesse Hinz - DT - Beatrice 3. Antaries Daniels - RB - Omaha Northwest 4. Nick Mizaur - S - Creighton Prep 5. Jeff Uher - DT - Creighton Prep 6. Ron Coleman - FB/DT - Omaha North The last 5 I won't put in any kind of order: Christian Dudzik - ATH - Skutt Catholic Dion Jones - CB - Millard North Bronson Marsh - QB - Millard South Ben Renshaw - WR - Millard North Stephon Washington - RB - Omaha Burke

I don't subscribe to any of the services, but from the teasers it certainly looks like we have more than 4-5 recruits that are pretty good coming in tomorrow. BigWillie - Does there seem to be more early interest from some of the more sought after recruits in 2010 than typical?

unfortunately being the most explosive players in the state of nebraska doesnt make these guys anything more than what they are...walkons.I have nothing against them but I will not count on walk ons to be our explosive athletes.Anything these guys do will be EXTRA.We had better start recruiting some smaller speedier guys at WR or our offense will always be somewhat handcuffed.Im not even sure if the guys have to be big time 4 an5 star type guys but they must be fast and able toget YAC.Deep threats are needed in the worst way and as of right now we have none. Just walk-ons, huh? So were Clete Pillen, Kelly Saalfeld, I.M. Hipp, David Clark, Jarvis Redwine, Derrie Nelson, Jimmy Williams, Toby Williams, John Parella, and Jared Tomich. They also all happened to receive All-American recognition. I also remember another explosive player from the Omaha area that did alright - Reggie Baul. I truly believe that Kildow would have been offered a ship if he hadn't been injured. Would that have changed your mind about him?

We should be adequate at WR next year. Kinnie should add immediate depth, but we'll need the core group of Gilleylan, Holt, and Paul to really step up. As for this year's recruiting class, don't count out a couple of speedy slot type walk-ons in Kildow and Failla. They may be small and coming off of injuries, but they were two of the most explosive players in the state their junior years.

You have to also take into account that Bo and his staff had a lot to do this year. They didn't know the players on the team, they had a culture to change, they had schemes to implement and a playbook to develop, etc.. I don't know how much time this took away from recruiting and I'm not sure how much difference it would have made in our class, but it is certainly something to keep in mind. Also, I didn't expect Bo to bring in a top class this year. According to everything I have read, the man doesn't pressure visitors to verbal, he doesn't promise playing time, and he doesn't feed NFL aspirations. Bo is building a recruiting base to build upon. Hopefully we will reap these benefits in future classes. For now, I'm not going to get too worked up about our class "not being good enough" on paper.

Here's another just so you know: Solich's 2002 class was ranked 40th in the nation. It produced two national award semi-finalists, three all Big-XII 1st teamers, two first round draft picks, and nearly 1/3 of the class received at least 2nd team all-conference recognition by either the coaches or the AP.