Something that's been bugging me . . .

[Hunter94]

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that to be competitive every year you need to have very good recruiting every year. By very good I mean top 15 in the final rankings. We had top 15 classes almost every year when we were winning NC's and we combined that with excellent work ethic, coaching and leadership. Yes Va Tech is a good program but when's the last time they were in a NC? 99'? Hell we were in one more recently than they have. I wouldn't say I'm a star gazer, but I absolutely think that rankings overall matter. If we consistently have classes ranked 30th or lower we will not compete for NC's anytime soon.

 

Now don't take this personally, but I think you are wrong and here's why:

 

1) recruiting is an inexact science to say the least,

 

agreed, but it is still a science and on average, pretty damn reliable.

 

2) most recruiting "experts" say the difference between the #1 and the #10 class perception,

 

(And if you can't tell the difference between 1st and 10th just how reliable are the rankings overall?)

 

name some reliable sources? who??

 

3) if you think Tom Osborne's recruiting classes were consistently in the top 15 then you are revising history-in a good way,

 

Tom had a decided advantage, the game has evolved since then and so has conditioning, those advantages are gone forever.

 

(Tom Osborne's classes were typically rated 20th or lower. Now there were years, 1986 [Maybe it was '87] and 1996 where the Huskers had the #1, or at least top 5, rated class and there were other years where Nebraska was in the top 15. But overall, TO's classes were ranked 20th or lower.)

 

Let's say there are two RB's:

 

* One is from Omaha, 6'0" 195 lbs and runs a verified 4.49 40 and is rated 3 's.

* One is from Florida, 6'0" 203 lbs and runs a verified 4.49 40 and is rated 5 's.

 

Let's assume that all other attributes: Bench, squat, 10 yard dash, shuttle, cone, vertical, etc are the same. Furthermore, let's also assume the differences between them regarding speed, vision, agility, blocking, catching, etc are negligible.

 

Of the two RB's, which one is better? Is the five star from Florida really better than the three star from Omaha just because some recruiting "expert" says so?

 

yes, most likley because the kid from Flordia is playing and generating stats in a much tougher environment with a higher grade of competition!

 

Let's take an actual case study:

 

Marlon Lucky was 5 's coming out of high school.

Roy Helu was 3 's coming out of high school.

 

Of the two, which, in your opinion, is the better running back?

 

we could play this game all day long, at any school.

 

(Please note I'm not Lucky bashing here because I love the kid and thought he gave everything he possibly could.)

[huskers1]

HuskerJen...I've said many times, anyone who wants to sway their argument to "recruiting isn't exact" or "stars don't matter" can very easily do so. Look at Aaron Curry (two star) Colt Mccoy (three star) Helu (three star) Bradford (three star)...yes I get there a ton of very good athletes that are three stars, hell even Eric Martin appears to be very talented and he was a three star. However, like Hunter94 said and I've said a ton of times, all one has to do is look at the overall recruiting rankings year in and year out then look who's competing for NC's on a yearly basis. Yes everyone knows there are exceptions like ND, FSU, Miami, and probably some others. Everyone knows it takes more than just recruiting good athletes, it also takes dedication, coaching, S&C, cohesiveness, etc. Please people, save me the Callahan recruiting highly rated athletes and having no success argument bc everyone on here knows he wasn't good at developing those athletes. However, when is the last time you saw a team consitently (maybe 3 out of 5 years) competing for a NC that wasn't at least top 15 in the yearly rankings consistently compete for NC's for more than one year? The teams that have been close to a NC year after year that come to mind are USC, Florida, Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma (don't tell me OU doesn't have good recruiting classes bc they fit right in with that top 15 mold every year), and Texas (usually they have that one loss to OU if that per year). Of course there are other teams that are ranked top 10 bcs that don't have that highly ranked classes but that is more than likely due to a weak division or having one great player carry them (Pat White).

[BiggerRed]

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.

[caveman99]

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.

Good post

[huskers1]

My point was to CONSISTENTLY be in contention for NC's. One year there was Mizzou and KU. Another year there was Louisville and Wisconsin. Like I mentioned before one great player in a very weak conference can carry a team like Pat White did. Utah was in there only once as well as TCU. Who are the constants in every single one of the final polls? Florida, Ohio State, USC, LSU, OU had a down year and QB issues in 06' but they are also a constant. Now look at their rankings: USC (1st all three) Florida (6th, 2nd, 2nd) Ohio State (15th, 17th, 10th) LSU (7th, 4th, 6th) and OU (3rd, 5th, 5th) Again I am saying CONSISTENTLY being in contention to be in the national title game, not in the top 10 one out of ten years. Hell one could even make an argument just based off alabama. Yes they have one of the best coaches in the country and he has done amazing things with every team he's had including alabama. Let me break Alabamas recruiting rankings down according to rivals: 2002 (30th), (2003) (49th) 2004 (15) 2005 (18th) 2006 (11th) 2007 (10th) 2008 (1) 2009 (1). Sure they had a few years where they won 9 or 10 games but do you really think its coincidence that they all the sudden are contending for a NC's after they had 6 very good recruiting classes in a row including two that were ranked number 1?

[lilred]

one only has to look at the top 10 recruiting classes and how those teams finished in the rankings at the end of the season (over time), it doesn't get any simpler than that. if you think being consistent in wins and BCS appearances isn't influenced primarily by recruiting success you are truly delusional! there IS a direct correlation!

I totally agree with this and all the similar posts in this thread.

 

Teams that recruit well win, teams that win recruit well. It's kind of a catch 22, but if we look at the top recruiting schools, is there not an obvious correlation? YES I KNOW THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS (easy schedules, etc.) AND COACHING PLAYS A HUGE FACTOR IN WINS AND LOSSES, but Jimmies and Joes beat X's and O's, do they not? Of course recruiting rankings are not an exact science, but Rivals is about as good as anyone at identifying talent, as much as many here would deny, and higher ranked classes project better in college than lower ranked classes. I agree, there is much error in evaluating players, but they don't give out these "stars" willy-nilly.

 

I know there are a lot of other factors than the amount of stars players have by their names, but I just can't disagree more with people who say that recruiting rankings don't matter. The rankings themselves are meaningless, but they indicate how talented your players are, and talent DOES MATTER, of course.

 

I'm not exactly sure what other people here are arguing, so I'm not aiming this at anyone specifically, but is there anyone out there who disagrees that when looking at 3 and 5 star rated players, the 5 star players are IN MOST CASES better athletes and better football players?

[BiggerRed]

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.

[lilred]

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.

I'm not sure who the "you" is to whom you are referring, but a couple of thoughts come to mind when I read this.

 

You say that Nebraska has never had elite recruiting, but I'm looking at some of the classes in recent years in the 10-20 range and they are damn good. Good enough to win championships with a guy like Tom Osborne at the helm. I'm not sure what teams you were talking about that we'll never come close to in recruiting, but those ten years of recruiting look pretty good to me, better than it does now at least. I hear a lot of people saying that TO's recruiting was average, but those stats look well above average to me. (I wasn't around in the 90's so I'm judging by the above figures)

 

And saying that we'll probably never recruit top ten classes is silly as well. Just because we haven't in the past is no reason to say we won't in the future. If we get back to how well and consistently we recruited in that ten year stretch we may very well be back. It seems like you're saying our recruiting hasn't changed since then. We've taken some hits in recent years, and our past 2-3 classes just haven't been on that level. Bo obviously looks like a better coach than Callahan.

 

And I'M tired of people saying they're tired of the "pessimism" over our recruiting. I haven't seen anyone who is actually pessimistic, only people who are being realistic. Simply put, this year's class really looks like it could be better. Even if there are people here who are pessimistic, they have every right to be, and it shouldn't bother you, especially if you are optimistic. So I would ask YOU to quit going on and on about the same thing. As far as offering some solutions, to whom? We are not coaches, we can't do anything to change it, so don't act like people who are unhappy are causing any problems.

 

At any rate, it looks like we could have some heavy duty recruits looking at us hard for next year, and the more we win, the better we will recruit.

[HSKRNOKC]

Great post.

[huzkerbob]

Man these recruiting threads are getting monotonous!