AndyDufresne

The knock against Callahan was that he brought in way too many. He had an argument, though, which was that Nebraska fans aren't patient about their winning. The counter-argument was that he didn't need to take such a radical approach. But he did. Misfiring with too many JUCOs is not a good problem to have. It can totally screw up your recruiting for years.

 

As for the counting your eggs, valid point, but Hardrick is going to contribute. That's as certain as night following day. Harper and David are more questionable, but in my opinion it's a question of when, not if. The point of the article was that we have a high success rate with JUCOs who contribute, and since we have a small number of them, that makes it an effective use of scholarships.

 

But it's not really a fair comparison to make. You give Bo Pelini a roster with as little depth and holes in it as the one Callahan inherited, and you might've seen a heavy influx of JUCOs as well. It's not as if Callahan's JUCO reliance continued at such a high level (was it?) Without such a radical approach, we wouldn't have had absolute studs like Zac Taylor, Mo Purify, or Carl Nicks, wouldn't have had starters such as Zack Bowman, Andre Jones (he was bad, but he did start), Barry Cryer, Ola Dagunduro. In recruiting - whether it's JUCO or not - it comes with the understanding that some guys pan out, some guys don't. But we obviously had a case where we needed all those guys to be there, and as we got to the end of Callahan's regime, we saw JUCOs being recruited to supplement the roster, not plug in all the front lines. Which is pretty much the same thing Bo is doing.

 

Basically, the number differential is not that great when the rosters were equally deep. But this is just from memory. I could be wrong.

 

I do agree on Hardrick. But whether his career success at NU is more like Zac Taylor's or Andre Jones', both of whom started a ton of games for us over their years, remains to be seen.

The numbers differential is fairly great. Callahan's 2005-2007 classes never dropped below 22% being from the junior college ranks and twice were above 30%. Pelini's had one class where it was over 10% which was 2010 at 18.1%, and it is only so high because we added a 4 for 4 juco very late (Baptiste).

Also, I think that you are mistaken that the roster Callahan inherited was lacking depth and full of holes. The defense he inherited was absolutely loaded, and provided 6 starters as late as 2006 when Callahan's juco talent had plenty of time to replace them. Obviously, the offense needed retooled but 4/5 of our offensive line (don't forget that Andy Christensen, Mike Huff, Nate Swift, and Ty Steinkuhler all committed under Solich before he was fired in 2004), the starting TE, and a starting WR were all inherited talent.

Also don't forget that Pelini used a converted RB at linebacker, and a whole host of walk-ons throughout the defense in 2008 (Holt, Thorell, Wortman, O'Hanlon, Koehler, etc.). Do you think that it is unfair to say that the inherited offensive talent in 2004 was comparable to the inherited defensive talent in 2008? I don't.

Technically you could add Tyson Hetzer to the list, though he did verbal under Callahan and Pelini honored the commitment. Otherwise, nice breakdown.

I've looked at a few teams from the Big 10, and Juco recruiting is pretty rare among them, although prep school players don't seem that uncommon.

Edit: Added Colton Koehler to the list of contributing walk-ons. I originally missed him because he joined the roster in 2006 as a redshirt freshman transfer.

My thoughts this year for the Safety positions will be Smith and Gomes winning them, but Gomes will slide over to the Dime position and Rickey will come in whenever Nebraska uses 6+ DBs. He'll contribute, just not as much as he probably would've last year (where he would've been the 7th DB and came in on the Dime downs when Dennard was hurt, moving Gomes outside).

I wouldn't be surprised to see West come in over Rickey.

Don't count out Austin Cassidy. Also hearing really good things about both Corey Cooper and Harvey Jackson.

I liked this, but I really have a hard time putting Purify over McNeill and Allen. His star may have burned brightest at his peak, but the other two have contributed more overall, in my opinion.

It is all a matter of opinion. I would personally tend to put more emphasis on impact during the time they played than longevity.

I know that they are at different positions, but consider these facts:

McNeill has started 26 games. He has 61 career receptions for 726 yards.

Purify is credited with 9 starts. He had 91 career receptions for 1,444 yards. He ranks 6th in career receptions and 5th in reception yardage in Nebraska history.

As for Allen, neither his career numbers nor impact are at superstar status yet. Perhaps you would argue that Purify should be a star rather than a superstar, and I really thought about this.

I love these posts, but it makes more sense to do them after all the players have finished their NU career.

I agree with that. I initially wanted to do an analysis of each class that would make up the 2010 Huskers (which I still might do, but I'm not sure I want to do as much speculating as it would take to analyze the 2009 and 2010 classes). I already had done quite a bit of the research on the 2006 class and some on the 2007 class. Instead of just scrapping it and going back to 2005, I decided to finish the 2006 class and keep going with 2007. I can do pre-2006 classes at some point.

I'm happy to contribute something to the board that others enjoy, as I certainly like taking advantage of all of the great info available on individual propects. I actually like doing the research, as it makes slow times at work go a lot faster. I'll try to put out a 2007 version of this in a couple of weeks.

Some interesting reading

Thanks for that. I also found this: Rivals calcs

Looking at the formula, it is interesting that so much of the team ranking depends on the "N" variable, which only awards bonus points for position rankings and being in the Rivals 100 (or Juco top 50). Being in positions 101-250 of the Rivals 250 is basically meaningless, as are the numerical ratings (4.9-6.1). Kenny Bell was the #67 athlete and a 5.7 three star last year, but if the formula stands and bonus points are only awarded to the top 25 athletes he was worth less points than several players that were rated as 5.6 three stars because they were within some arbitrary number for position rankings.

I was surprised that the formula was developed by one statistician from Cal. I would have guessed that they would have put more time and effort into developing the formula than to hire one guy to come up with a model for them still using position ranking cutoffs developed by Jeremy Crabtree nearly a decade ago.

read the description of a 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, etc. on rivals go next to the horizontal yellow bar and click About

I have read the descriptions and understand what the numbers represent. I am more interested in the reasoning for the assigned values and calculations, which I'm not sure anyone not affiliated with Rivals really knows. I'm hoping someone has some insight.

I don't understand Rivals rankings. The very base measure of a recruit is the stars. Now one would assume that a 4-star is twice as likely as a 2-star of finding success on the field, given basic mathematics. Now Rivals throws out their numerical ratings. The highest rated 2 star is given a 5.4. The lowest rated 4 star is given a 5.8. Using these numbers, the 4 star is only 1.074 times more likely to succeed. What does Rivals see as the true measure of value? Why use both units of measure? Why start a 2-star at a 4.9 and end with a 5-star getting a 6.1? Seems kind of odd starting and stopping points to me.

Add to this the team rankings, which I don't understand at all. Last year, Oregon and Notre Dame both had 23 recruits. They each had 10 four stars, but Notre Dame had 12 three stars and 1 two star while Oregon had 1 five star, 9 three stars, and 3 two stars. They both had the exact same star average, and the total of the numerical ratings (5.5, 5.8, etc.) both were 131.2. And yet Oregon's team ranking is 233 points higher in the team rankings, or nearly 15% higher than Notre Dame's. With things being so equal, why the disparity?

It looks like the chart stops after January 2010. In 2010, approximimately 600k jobs have been added. The unemployment rate actually fell slightly from May to June. While things certainly aren't rapidly improving, they aren't progressively getting worse like one might infer from watching the linked presentation.

1. Braveheart

2. The Shawshank Redemption

3. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

4. Office Space

5. Good Will Hunting

6. Cinderella Man

7. The Matrix

8. The Usual Suspects

9. Fight Club

10. There's Something About Mary

The best movie I've seen fairly recently is The Illusionist with Edward Norton, Jr. I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it.

i would like to get some of these guys,,but they are long shots....maybe nu will be lucky and get one....i am waiting to see if nu can ever snag a 5 star recruit...has not happen in a long time

You realize Baker Steinkuhler was a 5 star and is just going to be a redshirt sophomore this year, right?

After close to 50 hours of gameplay, I finished Mass Effect 2 last night. The story was engrossing, the characters were interesting, there were plenty of epic moments, and the gameplay was solid. IMO, it is easily one of the best games this generation.

Also, I started Assassin's Creed II. I'm only about an hour in, but it seems fun even if a step down from Mass Effect 2. I'm sure that given time, it will grow on me.

If it happens that Jalen and Xavier head to Nebraska(and that is a big IF - I would guess that LouisianaHusker over at RSS is batting .500 on his predictions at best), I think it is very likely that it will be soon. It would make sense for Xavier to transfer immediately and sit out this year so he will be ready when Jalen arrives next year.

the original post is an interesting one, and begs the question: What is NU's ranking so far for the 2011 class or is there such a thing yet?

 

And how have the Big 10 teams fared in this "ranking" versus some of these other conferences...most notably, the one we just left?

 

We have a top 10 class right now, but it's really early in the game. However, we have grabbed a lot more recruits in the top 250/500 this year. So while our class may only be 5-10 (10 being on the far end this year) we have a lot more solid players than last year's class. Because class ranks are based on the rating and star's attached to each recruit, a player ranked 170 could give the same points as say a player ranked 250- although there is a talent difference between the two.

So what recruits from this class and last year's class would you consider "not solid"? How much talent differential do you really think there is between a player ranked 170 and a player ranked 250? How are you determining a top 500? I would really like to see it.

IMO, there is certainly value in the recruiting services, but you seem to be placing entirely too much importance in them and are definitely overestimating their accuracy.

Loyyd Carr always recruited Texas fairly decent as well...nothing major but he would pluck a couple out of there every year or so.

 

Edit: Nope I guess they didn't recruit texas well at all...they only got three from 02-07..seems like they got more though.

Michigan did quite well in Texas in 2007 and 2008. In 2007, they signed the #1 player in Texas. In 2008, they signed the #5, #34, and #38 players in Texas. All of these were 4 or 5 star players.

Imagine Suh's head (the avatar on post #2) on the body of post #3. Seriously, would ya?

That . . . is . . . just . . . wrong. You deserve one of these for putting that imagery in my head

How about we compare it to Iowa's current commit list. All three of them. The only school comparable to us as far as commit lists in the Big Ten is Ohio State.

 

Iowa actually has 5 commits. Until we get to a point where most schools have double digit commits, it is going to be hard to compare. The only Big 10 schools that have 10 or more commits are Nebraska, Ohio State, and Indiana.

 

They must have picked up a few recently.

 

They picked up an instate 3* TE with an Iowa State offer and an unrated Texas WR with offers from Arkansas and Arizona. That makes two TX WR's for Iowa this year.

The only recruit committed to Iowa worth much is Austen Blythe a 4 guard with offers from stanford, kansas, kansas state, wisconsin, and iowa state. Other than that kid their class is lacking so far. But Ferentz always does alot with the minimal talent he brings in.

 

So are you saying that Dylan Admire, Daniel Davie, and Aaryn Bouzos are not worth much (your words)? They are all 5.6 three star or lower players with minimal offer lists. Would you consider them to have minimal talent?

No I didnt mean it that way, I was just making a point that they dont have as many highly rated recruits as we do, but like I said Ferentz does alot with the talent he brings in. I wouldnt trade Admire, Bouzos, Davie. I wasnt trying to start an arguement, sorry.

I wasn't trying to start an argument either. I was just curious about your statement.

How about we compare it to Iowa's current commit list. All three of them. The only school comparable to us as far as commit lists in the Big Ten is Ohio State.

 

Iowa actually has 5 commits. Until we get to a point where most schools have double digit commits, it is going to be hard to compare. The only Big 10 schools that have 10 or more commits are Nebraska, Ohio State, and Indiana.

 

They must have picked up a few recently.

 

They picked up an instate 3* TE with an Iowa State offer and an unrated Texas WR with offers from Arkansas and Arizona. That makes two TX WR's for Iowa this year.

The only recruit committed to Iowa worth much is Austen Blythe a 4 guard with offers from stanford, kansas, kansas state, wisconsin, and iowa state. Other than that kid their class is lacking so far. But Ferentz always does alot with the minimal talent he brings in.

So are you saying that Dylan Admire, Daniel Davie, and Aaryn Bouzos are not worth much (your words)? They are all 5.6 three star or lower players with minimal offer lists. Would you consider them to have minimal talent?

How about we compare it to Iowa's current commit list. All three of them. The only school comparable to us as far as commit lists in the Big Ten is Ohio State.

 

Iowa actually has 5 commits. Until we get to a point where most schools have double digit commits, it is going to be hard to compare. The only Big 10 schools that have 10 or more commits are Nebraska, Ohio State, and Indiana.

 

They must have picked up a few recently.

They picked up an instate 3* TE with an Iowa State offer and an unrated Texas WR with offers from Arkansas and Arizona. That makes two TX WR's for Iowa this year.

How about we compare it to Iowa's current commit list. All three of them. The only school comparable to us as far as commit lists in the Big Ten is Ohio State.

Iowa actually has 5 commits. Until we get to a point where most schools have double digit commits, it is going to be hard to compare. The only Big 10 schools that have 10 or more commits are Nebraska, Ohio State, and Indiana.

The 2011 class will be our first in the Big 10. Shouldn't you be comparing this to the Big 10 schools?

I should be but I haven't switched into Big 10 mode yet. Quite honestly . . . I haven't hardly thought about the switch. I've been so Big 12 focused for so long that it's not going to be an easy transition.

 

Also . . . I don't know who would be our recruiting competition in the Big 10. It probably is at least partially dependent on how the divisions are broken down. I'd guess Iowa might be a good comparison but I really don't know what to think. I assume OSU and PSU are probably like the OU and UT of the conference in that NU probably will usually be beneath them in class rankings.

 

In short, I wouldn't know where to begin with that comparison.

I agree about not knowing where to begin. I have read that they will announce divisions in August. I've looked at Big 10 recruiting quite a bit honestly, and while OSU is at OU and UT's level, none of the other schools are. PSU and Michigan are about at A&M's level, probably a little stronger.