Busting a few Osborne Recruiting Myths

[omahapanda]

"Because recruiting rankings are harder to find - and, indeed, fewer recruiting services actually existed - there remains confusion, in my view, over the work of Tom Osborne. A myth, I suppose, that he collected ham-and-eggers for most of his long, illustrious career, kids with five hearts but only two stars. And Nebraskans! Almost solely Nebraskans!

 

Osborne won 250+ games, in other words, with the Hickory Huskers.

 

He did indeed collect his share of Nebraska kids, and built his offensive and defensive lines with guys like the Zatechkas, the Wiegerts, the Noonans, Terry Conneally, John Parrella, Erik Anderson, Frd Pollack, Dean Steinkuhler. Because of higher scholarship limits, he also had more to collect. There was better talent in Omaha and Lincoln, too, to recruit.

 

But Osborne and his crew did more than that."

 

http://www.huskerlocker.com/blogs/view/bid/2575/i/recruiting_the_osborne_record/o/0

[HUSKER FREAK]

Interesting read thanks!

[teleman77]

That made for a very thought provoking article.

 

This outta start up the Callahan haters again!

[husker B-rent]

i do always hate it when i see people say that "the huskers had consistently low ranked recruiting classes during the osborne years" in fact i saw a poster from here say just that over on tiggerboard just yesterday!!

 

simple fact is that if you look at the books etc etc that did evaluate recruiting rankings back in the day our 91/92 class that won our 95/95 national championships were both rated in the top 5 by almost every recruiting publication out there..

 

in short good read!!

[caveman99]

i do always hate it when i see people say that "the huskers had consistently low ranked recruiting classes during the osborne years" in fact i saw a poster from here say just that over on tiggerboard just yesterday!!

 

simple fact is that if you look at the books etc etc that did evaluate recruiting rankings back in the day our 91/92 class that won our 95/95 national championships were both rated in the top 5 by almost every recruiting publication out there..

 

in short good read!!

The article brings up some great points, the truth about TO's recruiting classes lies somewhere in between though. I can't find it now, but on Husker Pedia someone put together a list of 20 years of recruiting rankings for NU; I am pretty sure I have seen it linked to on this board as well but I can't find it. The 5 year recruiting class ranking averages for the title years in the 90's was like 22 or so. TO did have a couple of Top 10 recruiting classes in '96 and '97 I think, but most of his classes were Top 20 or Top 25 caliber. To say TO didn't have elite classes is revisionist history, but his recruiting efforts, at least according to the rating services, doesn't compare to the rankings of the elite recruiting schools of today that everyone says we need to emulate. Point is that I don't think Top 5 classes year end and year out at NU are neither reasonable nor necessary to be elite, however getting great talent is needed, contrary to a lot of people's opinions, and I think it is important to stay in the Top 20 each year and get a Top 10 class when possible. Of course this is just my opinion and everyone knows that opinions are like a-holes...........

[EZ-E]

I don't think Top 5 classes year end and year out at NU are neither reasonable nor necessary to be elite, however getting great talent is needed, contrary to a lot of people's opinions, and I think it is important to stay in the Top 20 each year and get a Top 10 class when possible.

 

[T_O_Bull]

Good article.

I can't believe that the Omaha/Lincoln metroplex can't produce, at the very minimum, two or three players with the talent to play big time football every year. This is our back yard and we should never lose these prospects. I have heard that Callahan burned a lot of bridges with the high school coaches in this area and if that is so then we need to reconstruct those bridges. There are also large cities which should be thought of as being within our sphere of influence. (Kansas City, Denver, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Des Moines, Davenport and the QuadCities area in Iowa to name a few). I realize Lincoln does not have the glitz of USC/UCLA, the great weather that Miami, Florida and Florida State has but we do, by God, have the tradition and casche of the Ohio States, Michigans, Penn States and Notre Dames of the world (and how many National Championships does this bunch have in the last 15/20 years?). The Husker future is bright and, if I can think up this scenario, I'm pretty sure TO and Bo can too.

 

T_O_B

[HUSKER 37]

I'm interested in why Omaha's talent has dwindled so much.

 

WHen I went back to my hometown (pop.5600)for a reunion last Summer, I was amazed at the improvement in the Weight room from back in my day.

 

And out here, there's football camps year-round.

[typ3kal]

Good article.

I can't believe that the Omaha/Lincoln metroplex can't produce, at the very minimum, two or three players with the talent to play big time football every year. This is our back yard and we should never lose these prospects. I have heard that Callahan burned a lot of bridges with the high school coaches in this area and if that is so then we need to reconstruct those bridges. There are also large cities which should be thought of as being within our sphere of influence. (Kansas City, Denver, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Des Moines, Davenport and the QuadCities area in Iowa to name a few). I realize Lincoln does not have the glitz of USC/UCLA, the great weather that Miami, Florida and Florida State has but we do, by God, have the tradition and casche of the Ohio States, Michigans, Penn States and Notre Dames of the world (and how many National Championships does this bunch have in the last 15/20 years?). The Husker future is bright and, if I can think up this scenario, I'm pretty sure TO and Bo can too.

 

T_O_B

 

 

It's not that we don't have good athletes, it's that they're playing in the wrong system. I imagine if more schools in the state switched from the option to a spread there would be more attention given to players.

[typ3kal]

I'm interested in why Omaha's talent has dwindled so much.

 

WHen I went back to my hometown (pop.5600)for a reunion last Summer, I was amazed at the improvement in the Weight room from back in my day.

 

And out here, there's football camps year-round.

 

 

Yea, this is the same for a lot of small towns / cities. Everyone has seemed to have caught up on the lifting / nutrition / conditioning side of football. Now a lot of how a player develops is determined by the coaching staff. See Bill Callahan.

[dylan]

i do always hate it when i see people say that "the huskers had consistently low ranked recruiting classes during the osborne years" in fact i saw a poster from here say just that over on tiggerboard just yesterday!!

 

simple fact is that if you look at the books etc etc that did evaluate recruiting rankings back in the day our 91/92 class that won our 95/95 national championships were both rated in the top 5 by almost every recruiting publication out there..

 

in short good read!!

 

any documentation for that? osborne did pull in some highly rated classes at times, but i'm pretty sure i've heard repeatedly that either the '91 or '92 class (the backbone classes of the '94 and '95 teams) was among his least lauded classes. pretty sure it was the '91 class.

[caveman99]

i do always hate it when i see people say that "the huskers had consistently low ranked recruiting classes during the osborne years" in fact i saw a poster from here say just that over on tiggerboard just yesterday!!

 

simple fact is that if you look at the books etc etc that did evaluate recruiting rankings back in the day our 91/92 class that won our 95/95 national championships were both rated in the top 5 by almost every recruiting publication out there..

 

in short good read!!

 

any documentation for that? osborne did pull in some highly rated classes at times, but i'm pretty sure i've heard repeatedly that either the '91 or '92 class (the backbone classes of the '94 and '95 teams) was among his least lauded classes. pretty sure it was the '91 class.

On Huskerpedia, a poster had a thread in which they listed all of the past recruiting rankings for the last 20 years or so. The cumulative 5 year ranking of the classes that contributed to the '95 championship was 17.6. I think I posted it was around 22 in the Football forum yesterday, but I found the link and correct data since then. However 17.6 isn't the elite level I think many believe it takes to win at an elite level. I can't find the link right now, but I am pretty sure that the first class in that 5 year average, '91, was rated at 28. That is why I believe what I do as per my previous post above about needing to be Top 20 in recruiting with a fair share of Top 15 or 10 classes mixed in. I don't think Top 5 classes on average are realistic nor necessary.

[dylan]

i do always hate it when i see people say that "the huskers had consistently low ranked recruiting classes during the osborne years" in fact i saw a poster from here say just that over on tiggerboard just yesterday!!

 

simple fact is that if you look at the books etc etc that did evaluate recruiting rankings back in the day our 91/92 class that won our 95/95 national championships were both rated in the top 5 by almost every recruiting publication out there..

 

in short good read!!

 

any documentation for that? osborne did pull in some highly rated classes at times, but i'm pretty sure i've heard repeatedly that either the '91 or '92 class (the backbone classes of the '94 and '95 teams) was among his least lauded classes. pretty sure it was the '91 class.

On Huskerpedia, a poster had a thread in which they listed all of the past recruiting rankings for the last 20 years or so. The cumulative 5 year ranking of the classes that contributed to the '95 championship was 17.6. I think I posted it was around 22 in the Football forum yesterday, but I found the link and correct data since then. However 17.6 isn't the elite level I think many believe it takes to win at an elite level. I can't find the link right now, but I am pretty sure that the first class in that 5 year average, '91, was rated at 28. That is why I believe what I do as per my previous post above about needing to be Top 20 in recruiting with a fair share of Top 15 or 10 classes mixed in. I don't think Top 5 classes on average are realistic nor necessary.

 

those rankings mesh a lot better with my impression of those years. i also agree with your conclusions. it all comes down to having great coaching (and yes, getting the players you need to win is part of great coaching).

[zoogs]

I think, for one thing, the college football landscape has changed significantly. Having s&c or a system in place like Osborne (with the constancy of assistants) had that was head and shoulders above others isn't likely to happen again.

 

And for another, averaging a Top 20 recruiting class over a four or five year stretch is still pretty dang impressive. I'm not sure any program averages "top 5" over 5 years, because they'll have a top recruiting class one year, then a couple of "darn good" ones that are Top 15 or so, and maybe another highly ranked class. That's my impression anyway. So we're talking about averaging say, a 9th ranked recruiting class (really stellar 5-year performance) vs 17.6...that's almost splitting hairs in terms of expected differential.

[caveman99]

I think, for one thing, the college football landscape has changed significantly. Having s&c or a system in place like Osborne (with the constancy of assistants) had that was head and shoulders above others isn't likely to happen again.

 

And for another, averaging a Top 20 recruiting class over a four or five year stretch is still pretty dang impressive. I'm not sure any program averages "top 5" over 5 years, because they'll have a top recruiting class one year, then a couple of "darn good" ones that are Top 15 or so, and maybe another highly ranked class. That's my impression anyway. So we're talking about averaging say, a 9th ranked recruiting class (really stellar 5-year performance) vs 17.6...that's almost splitting hairs in terms of expected differential.

I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, but that isn't what a lot of people believe. They believe you have to recruit exactly like Texas, OU, Florida, or USC. Take a look at what those schools have done over the last 5 years, this includes 2010 current rankings, this is all per Rivals.

 

School - 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006

USC – 7, 4, 8, 2, 1 = 4.4

Florida – 1, 11, 3, 1, 2 = 3.6

OU – 5, 13, 6, 14, 9 = 9.4

Texas – 2, 5, 14, 5, 5 = 6.2

NU - 28, 28, 30, 13, 20 = 23.8

 

OU and Texas have some classes just out of the top 10, but the averages are still in the top 10 overall. Does NU need to be at that level to win MNC's? Is it even realistic to expect that? I just don't quite buy it I guess based on what NU used to do and what other schools have done with lower averages. Don't get me wrong, I am not a stars be danged kind of person. I just don't think that NU can emulate or copy Florida in this regard, nor does it have to as a program to be elite. Seems to me that NU was able to compete with OU and Texas pretty well this year and the 5 year average for NU is 23.8, this shows me that some of the factors like great coaching and a good S&C program can help elevate talent better. I think NU needs to get that ranking average up inside 20 for sure, but I don't think Top 10 is needed. Would I love NU to recruit as well as Texas, sure as I don't think it would hurt. I just don't place the sole ability of the program to win at a high level on matching blow for blow with Texas, especially when we share the same main recruiting base and they have the backyard advantage.