Dr. Strangelove

All of this and our serious issues with turnovers. We simply can't keep turning the ball over at the rate we do and expect to win a championship of any sort.

Great point. I was a student around the time those violations occurred, and in defense of the student-athletes the website used by the school to order your books through the UNL bookstore automatically included 'recommended' textbooks and supplies in your order. You had to manually deselect the 'recommended' material. When I went to NSE (New Student Enrollment), you're basically put in front of a computer with an adviser to select your classes and order your books. There's several thousand students waiting in line to do the same, so it's not like you got to take your time. You picked your classes, added your books to the cart and checked out in a hurry. A few friends of mine accidentally ordered the 'recommended' books and had to take them back first day of class... the line to do so was huge. I can totally understand how, using the website, this could happen.

They are updating all their rankings so he must have dropped out. No idea why (other than the standard "he committed to Nebraska" comment). That would be a fall of epic proportions. Rivals is updating their Rivals250, and it will be available tomorrow 12 ET Thanks. Didn't realize they took the old rankings off already. Yup, only released the top 100 today. The rest of the 250 tomorrow, and if I understand correctly, all 4* players not in the 250 the day after.

Here is where you are mistaken and lacking love. Gay people don't want protected status for their sin. They want protected status for their existence as human beings. Great point landlord. On the plus side, it doesn't matter what Dbqgolfer thinks. In 15-20 years we're all going to look back at this time period and think about how backward and outdated we were. I'm sure we'll think about not allowing gay rights in a similar way to how we view laws that banned interracial marriage/rights for women, etc. Just like now, there were people who thought those laws protected the integrity of our country. Luckily golfer is in a rapidly shrinking minority.

Because that doesn't fall in the last 1.5 years? Perhaps it's better to address why you chose 1.5 seasons instead of 2. Doing that allowed you to ignore the Ohio State loss. And while the victory against Wisconsin is great, they have pounded us twice and were a better team last season. They have been better than us each season since we joined the B1G. Pretty steady pattern of emphasizing the losses and ignoring or discounting the wins. I think we're good here. Aren't you doing the exact opposite? I'm as happy about beating Wisconsin as the next guy, but using that victory in an argument that suggests we were as good as them that year doesn't hold water. Wins can tell you things, losses can tell you things. But in this instance, our losses against Wisconsin tells me more than our win.

Because that doesn't fall in the last 1.5 years? Perhaps it's better to address why you chose 1.5 seasons instead of 2. Doing that allowed you to ignore the Ohio State loss. And while the victory against Wisconsin is great, they have pounded us twice and were a better team last season. They have been better than us each season since we joined the B1G.

Firstly, I apologize I can't quote the posts directly, the feature doesn't seem to be working correctly on my phone. But, you did state that we're 3-1 against those teams in the last 1.5 years. Why leave out the Ohio State loss? I did try to present an argument that recruiting does matter, you stated that the article does not solve the chicken-egg question. I can't win that debate, it's impossible for me to change your opinion just like you can't change mine. Still, I think recruiting has to be in the equation, I would argue its the second most important thing holding the team back, with turnovers being the most important.

While you may personally think this, Mavric is (IMO) presenting pretty telling facts that directly disagree with what you're saying. Well, I think what he is stating is paritally true. Yes, we're 3-1 against those teams the last year and a half which suggests progression. However, he conveniently left out the blowout loss to Ohio State earlier in the year, which makes our record 3-2. This is only slightly more impressive, and win you consider that 2 of those wins were against a struggling Michigan team... it's not like those were program defining wins like say, a victory against an LSU. So you're just basing that on your "reason" instead of actually looking at the won-lost records of the teams in the conference? Yes. That's exactly what he's saying. Well, in all actually we did lose to Ohio State that year and were, in fact, the third best team that season. The 2-2-5-3-5 results DO suggest that we have regressed over the last few seasons which was my original argument.

Perhaps I'm simply stewing in our conference play this season... Our turnover and field position issues have gotten worse, particularly this last season. It's hard to feel like progress is being made when these issues continue to plague the team. It was downright disheartening to see Nebraska come out and against Iowa the way they did. It was like watching Michigan State all over again. Progress on defense was counteracted by stagnation/turnover issues on offense. It would be nice to see Nebraska put together a team that was consistent on both sides of the ball, the last time I've seen that was '10. So when I say 'competitive', I should be referring to a complete and consistent team. So, in that regard, I personally think we have regressed over the last 3 seasons.

Yet we're 3-1 in the last year and a half against those teams. So by that measure we've drastically improved. Our competitiveness within the conference has not improved in that period.

We beat a five star team last month. Well you see, Georgia was down and on injuries and you really can't count that... Just be happy, people. Kool-aid. Yes, every time an SEC team loses they "don't want to be there" or are "injured", it's borderline comical! The national media ( mostly ESPN) certain tries to protect its investment by spinning things in that regard. That was a great win for our team, no doubt about it. Mavric's point about our record against those teams is actually pretty interesting, if not surprising. Still, let's not act like we're on the same level as those teams despite our recent success against 'five-star' teams (two wins against Michigan and a win against Georgia). Nebraska was very close to getting over the hump in 2009 and 2010 as the point differential Mavric pointed out proves, but I think we have regressed from that point for the past 3 seasons. Recruiting, relative to the teams that we're discussing, is a big reason why.

I'm still not sure the info in that article does much to to answer the chicken/egg question: Does better recruiting make your team better or are you recruiting better because you have a better team. Their "five-star" class: Alabama - won the 2009 national championship Auburn - undefeated in 2004 Florida - won 2006 and 2008 national championships Florida State - played for national championship in 2000 and won the ACC in 00-02-03-05 LSU - won 2007 national championship Ohio State - won 2002 national championship and won B1G in 02-05-06-07-08-09 Oklahoma - won 200 national championship and won Big XII in 02-04-06-07-08 Texas - won 2005 national championship and won Big XII in 05-09 That leaves Georgia (pretty similar success over that timeframe as Nebraska) Michigan (noticeably worse over that period) and Notre Dame (one year better than NU; outside the Top 25 every other year). Then you get to their "four-star" list. Oregon is obviously at the top with Stanford right there as well. After that, I'm not sure anyone else on that list has done better than Nebraska over that time: Probably South Carolina; Clemson the last couple years but it would be close over the last six; similar story with A&M & UCLA; I think the Huskers out-do Arky, Cal, Miami, UNC, Ole Miss, Penn St., Tennessee and Washington without too much trouble. So, considering many like to complain about Nebraska's poor recruiting under Pelini, it's mainly only the teams that were already national title contenders when Pelini took over that have surpassed our success on the field. Most other teams have at best marginally better success than Nebraska and we've done quite a bit better than several despite our "sub standard" recruiting. Answering the chicken/egg question is difficult and hard to answer. But the article focus's more on winning % against teams with inferior recruiting. Those 'five-star' teams have a much higher winning % against 'four-star' teams, and an even higher % against 'three-star' teams, etc. The same is true in reverse (a 'one-star' team has a low % against 'two-star' teams, and an even lower % against 'three-star' teams). I would argue that as Nebraska fans, we can use empirical evidence from our own records against those teams in the Pelini era to measure if this is in fact true. In this thread, the author mentions our records against certain teams based on their season ending records. While it doesn't go into detail about the exact teams (therefore it is hard to see our exact record against teams that are a '5-star' status), I know as a fan that we tend to only beat teams that are typically on our level or below. We've been searching for that big win against a real team (a 'five-star' team if you will) for 4 or 5 years now, and we can't just seem to get over the hump. Furthermore, while Georgia has a similar record over the past several seasons and we're coming off a victory against them, I would argue that they have been better over the past 5 seasons than Nebraska. For the most part, they have competed on the field with top teams around the country (something we haven't been able to accomplish) and were a few plays away for playing in, and likely winning, a National Championship. The way other 'four-star' teams have competed on the field, even while boasting similar records, I think are superior to Nebraska's. I think it's interesting to compare a team with the recruiting classes of LSU's to Nebraska's. LSU has consistently brought in top talent and top rankings for a number of years, and have lost 17 players to the NFL over the past two seasons (I'm assuming that all of the players that declared early this season are going to be taken). Even taking this into consideration, LSU is still going to be competitive and will probably compete for 10 wins in a brutal conference next season. If Nebraska lost 17 of it's players to the NFL over the last two years, what would our prospects be for next season? The biggest difference between them is straight up talent. LSU's high recruiting rankings 'reload' them each season with players that are more likely to produce. Ours do not.

Ignore star ratings and rely completely on the hard-hitting analysis of "OH HE'S GREAT, HE'S A GREAT GREAT PLAYER, I DROOL WHEN I WATCH HIM YOU'RE DUMB FOR NOT THINKING THAT HAHA!". It's hard not to agree with KJ. Recruiting rankings actually do tend to predict results. Dang near all D1 prospects look good on film, I would imagine you could watch the film of the Purdue, Colorado and Wake Forest recruits and come to the same conclusion. The fans of their recruiting classes probably say the exact same thing. "Our guy should be rated higher, if only Michigan/Oregon/Florida State offered, he'd be easily a 4*" or "It's a good thing those guys from Ohio State/USC/Virginia Tech didn't come offer after showing some initial interest, he is a very underrated 2*/3* kid". In addition, many of our 'under the radar recruits' (guys like King, Jones, Irons and Tolbert, in addition to others) are located in area's that are routinely examined and recruited for every last drop of talent that can be found. The schools in the SEC, ACC and Big 12 s by and large decided that these kids aren't worth a spot on their roster even though they were inevitably noticed and identified. It's not like Tolbert and Irons didn't play in front of many scouts because the talent on their teams were enormous. Unless Bo and his staff saw something that those dozen or so other schools didn't, I'm gonna have to say that they are a pass.

Here is an article explaining why recruiting rankings do matter.

Here's an updated list when you take out the top 4 recruits (in terms of offer lists). The top 4 recruits were: Gates, Foster, Keels, and Newell. The remaining 20 recruits: Florida State: 0 Auburn: 0 Michigan State: 1 South Carolina: 0 Missouri: 4 Oklahoma: 1 Alabama: 0 Clemson: 1 Oregon: 0 Stanford: 0 Ohio State: 1 Baylor: 2 LSU: 0 UCLA: 0 Oklahoma State: 0 Texas A&M: 0 USC: 0 Notre Dame: 0 Arizona State: 1 Wisconsin: 0 Georgia: 0 Michigan: 0 Florida: 0 Miami: 0 Texas: 0 Also: 12 of our recruits (exactly half) received 0 offers from the above schools. 17/24 recruits (71%) received 1 offer or less.

Spot on. As much as I hate to admit it, it's hard to blame his parents. One week before signing day, your kid is close to home and you prepare and brace yourself for that. The next day, he they could spend the next 4 years hundreds of miles away.

Sounds like this one might be slipping away... hopefully he decides to do what's best for him and not just for his parents.

This is definitely true. I think the same thing applies to Stoltenberg this year. Still, class at the bottom is a bit worrisome. Many of them, particularly the WRs and DBs, will benefit greatly from a redshirt year. Our numbers are different because I didn't only include documented offers, but schools that a recruit had taken official visits to or that were listed as having specific coaches recruiting them (ie, they might not have an offer, but they are being pursued by that school). I wasn't trying to make any kind of point or conclusion and I realize it's not exactly scientific. I think the worrisome bit at the bottom of the class is legitimate, to an extent, BUT, would be interested in looking at the bottom of other schools' classes. Obviously Bama, USC, LSU, etc. are still going to wipe the floor with us, but I bet taking away the top four guys of many other schools' lists would be more comparable than you'd think. Good point. I don't know how comparable we are to those schools, however, comparing us to our peers (Wisconsin, Michigan State, Penn State, etc) would probably yield similar results.

Special Teams has been horrid, as for the punt returning. Outside of that, we are pretty solid. When your given 3 vital duties, one of them is going to get the least attention. Here we have Cotton, who coaches TE's and basically nothing else. Special Teams should be given to someone who has the time to do it, not to Els. As for Coach Kaczenski, I'm not sure how this guy gets crap. Outside of this year, he has had nothing to work with and has been nothing but a great recruiter for us. This year he has gotten: DeAndre Wills, Blake McClain, Sedrick King, Joel Keels and Peyton Newell. Had Clinksdale been smart enough to pass his classes and be eligible, he would be on that list too. No doubt in my mind he would have gone anywhere else if he would have passed his classes and not gotten harped on by the staff. 2013: Maliek Collins, Randy Gregory, Kevin Maurice, Adam Taylor. Dimarya Mixon would be here if he didn't have academic issues. Suttles too, had he not been an idiot. 2012: Came to NU about a month before signing day, Brought a good commit with him as well. Aaron Curry. Not just horrid, but quite literally among the worst (bottom 3 or 4) in the country. I honestly hold my breath every time I watch one of our guys field a punt, in fear that it will be muffed.

It would really hurt to lose him. DE is a position of need. On the plus side, at least signing day for Nebraska might not be completely boring with the McClain drama unfolding.

This is definitely true. I think the same thing applies to Stoltenberg this year. Still, class at the bottom is a bit worrisome. Many of them, particularly the WRs and DBs, will benefit greatly from a redshirt year.

Using Rivals as a source, I decided to take a look and see what the offers would look like when you take out our top 4 recruits. First, here's the table with each recruit. Notice that there are differences between what I found and what Landlord originally posted (this could be due to him using different sources/combination of sources, or just me causing a mistake... my eyes aren't what they used to be): Florida State: 1 Auburn: 1 Michigan State: 2 South Carolina: 2 Missouri: 6 Oklahoma: 3 Alabama: 2 Clemson: 2 Oregon: 1 Stanford: 0 Ohio State: 1 Baylor: 4 LSU: 0 UCLA: 3 Oklahoma State: 0 Texas A&M: 1 USC: 2 Notre Dame: 0 Arizona State: 3 Wisconsin: 2 Georgia: 2 Michigan: 0 Florida: 2 Miami: 0 Texas: 0 (OP indicated 2 received offers, I couldn't find them on rivals or I simply looked over them) Here's the list when you take out the top 4 recruits (in terms of offer lists). The top 4 recruits were: Gates, Foster, McClain, and Newell. The remaining 21 recruits: Florida State: 0 Auburn: 0 Michigan State: 1 South Carolina: 0 Missouri: 5 Oklahoma: 1 Alabama: 0 Clemson: 1 Oregon: 0 Stanford: 0 Ohio State: 1 Baylor: 2 LSU: 0 UCLA: 0 Oklahoma State: 0 Texas A&M: 0 USC: 1 Notre Dame: 0 Arizona State: 1 Wisconsin: 1 Georgia: 0 Michigan: 0 Florida: 0 Miami: 0 Texas: 0 What do I take away from this? Our class, for the most part, doesn't have overly impressive offer lists. However, I think examining a recruiting class using offer lists as a benchmark has it's flaws. Several recruits who commit early in the process, and are clearly great football players, simply don't receive the same offers that another player would. Take Farmer and Harrison for example. Farmer only accounts for one tally on the table (Missouri), but is a highly ranked 4 star player who has camped well around the country. Similarly, Harrison is a great athlete and is no doubt a talented player, yet, he only accounts for 2 offers (Missouri and Michigan State). In contrast, Nick Gates waited until late in the process to commit and received extensive offers from just about every major school.

So you're wondering what the class would look like if you take away several of the best players? Yeah, pretty sure most classes wouldn't be as good under those circumstances. Of course classes get worse under those circumstances, the point is that this class is top heavy strictly from an argument using offer lists as a benchmark. I agree with kozzman. I think our coaches are taking chances on guys with great athletic frame, but who don't have the best offer lists. Tolbert, a tall WR, is a good example. What resource(s) did Landlord use in his original post? Just out of curiosity, I'll go through and see what the list looks using only our bottom 21 commits (take off the top 4).

I think it would be interesting to see what this list looks like when you take off a few guys. Chances are guys like Newell, Gates, and Foster account for a large number of those offers. Take the bottom 18 (about 2/3) of our class, throw out the top and see what that looks like. Ultimately I think this recruiting cycle did a great job of addressing our Lines (especially O-Line) with great recruits and is top heavy. The bottom of our class, however, isn't as impressive from an offer list standpoint.

You can take Lockhart, who I understand will not make it to campus, off the list. That puts us at 85.