Busting a few Osborne Recruiting Myths

[ESPY]

Thanks omahapanda for the link to this article about TO's recruiting efforts, a really intriguing read & IMO a much-needed angle on Nebraska's recruiting efforts in the last 30 years.

 

Here's my take - talent is a must for any team to succeed, especially in the major conferences. Therefore, we need to be in at least the top 30 every year. Just as important as recruiting top-notch talent, however, is the system in place, and that comes from the coach. Coaching is what sets the best teams apart from the rest because football is a game of matchups. Coaches who find the advantages with any matchup utilize any talent their teams have, and the best gameplans get the W. The Huskers might not ever land a top 5 or top 10 recruiting class according to Rivals or Scouts or ESPN. But, look across the landscape of NCAA coaches, & our best teams land a top 10 every time.

[kchusker_chris]

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.

 

You forgot...

 

LSU - 6, 2, 11, 4, 7 = 6

Alabama - 3, 1, 1, 10, 11 = 5.2

 

...now, find me a National Champion in the last 7 years that doesn't exist on these lists. I think it's the ambiguous definition of "elite" that clouds the conversation. Is reaching BCS games every other year "elite" to Husker fans? Right now I'd take it, but I'd also like to have a couple of NC's in there as well. I think you can reach BCS games, and "compete" with OU and Texas with top 25 classes. I'm not so sure you can win NC's without some top 5-10 classes however. You might get 1 NC every 20 years. But modern day dynasties (NU of the mid-90's) are built with recruiting classes like Alabama's.

[caveman99]

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.

 

You forgot...

 

LSU - 6, 2, 11, 4, 7 = 6

Alabama - 3, 1, 1, 10, 11 = 5.2

 

...now, find me a National Champion in the last 7 years that doesn't exist on these lists. I think it's the ambiguous definition of "elite" that clouds the conversation. Is reaching BCS games every other year "elite" to Husker fans? Right now I'd take it, but I'd also like to have a couple of NC's in there as well. I think you can reach BCS games, and "compete" with OU and Texas with top 25 classes. I'm not so sure you can win NC's without some top 5-10 classes however. You might get 1 NC every 20 years. But modern day dynasties (NU of the mid-90's) are built with recruiting classes like Alabama's.

I didn't forget them, I was just putting together some examples of where NU compares to programs everyone wants NU to emulate recruiting-wise. LSU and Alabama are also great examples. Here is my question, do you think that NU wouldn't be able to compete with Alabama? I have a hard time believing that. I saw NU beat OU and go toe to toe with Texas this year. I sure didn't see anything about LSU or USC this year that tells me they were a better team than NU. I think talent is needed, I am not sure that NU needs to have a 5 year average of less than 10 in the recruiting rankings though. The 5 year recruiting averages, according to SuperPrep(Became Scout) and Scout, for the 4 teams that NU had either win a title or in the title games were as follows: '94-18, '95-17.6, '97-14.2, '01-15. The highest the 5 year average for NU from '91 to present day was in 1999 at 13.4. Currently NU's 5 year average is 23.8, now this could get a bit better if Owa, Cooper, and Carnes commit, and I don't think that is quite good enough in the long run. I think NU needs to have an average less than 20. If Bo can get it around 15 and keep it there, then I think NU will have more than enough talent to be elite on the field. To make a jump to have a 5 year average of less than 10 is just not realistic nor necessary IMO.

 

On a side note, the data that I am referencing from HuskerPedia is from the old SuperPrep rankings. I combined that data with the Scout rankings because SuperPrep became Scout. If anyone has the old data for the pre-cursor to Rivals, i.e. pre-2002, that they could share, I would love to put together a similar analysis with that data set.

[kchusker_chris]

Texas did beat us, then got crushed by Alabama (go ahead and pile on the McCoy injury comments)

 

I do agree w/ you that we could "compete" with Alabama. We might even be able to beat them every once in a while. But to consistently compete at the level that they do will take more than coaching. No disrespect to Bo, but Saban is still a better coach than he is AND Saban has the tallent to dominate for the next 3-5 years. I don't see that tallent level falling off. The main thing I HOPE we have on them is that our assistant coaches will remain stable for the next few years, whereas Saban will be hiring new coordinators every year as they leave for head coaching positions...but when you're winning NC's, that's the price you pay.

 

Also, comparing today's college football landscape to the 80's or even 90's is kind of apples to oranges. In the 90's you could walk through our facilities, and they were second to almost no one. The game day atmosphere could only be found in a few locations. The exposure our athletes received was rivaled by very few. NFL scouts roamed the campus. Today, you can find those same scouts at TCU, Boise St, Cincinatti and other locations that were rarely mentioned in the same sentence as football. The landscape has changed. It wasn't long ago when the top 25 AP rankings consisted of the same 30 teams year in and year out. Today, you've got Utah and Central Michigan talked about along side Oklahoma and LSU.

[caveman99]

Texas did beat us, then got crushed by Alabama (go ahead and pile on the McCoy injury comments)

I am not sure what MNC game you were watching, but I don't call a 3 point game with 3 minutes to go a "crushing." Texas was in that game to very end and it appeared that they had a legit shot to win that game DESPITE not having the all time winningest QB in NCAA history. Go ahead and try to spin it that Alabama was miles better than Texas.

I do agree w/ you that we could "compete" with Alabama. We might even be able to beat them every once in a while. But to consistently compete at the level that they do will take more than coaching. No disrespect to Bo, but Saban is still a better coach than he is AND Saban has the tallent to dominate for the next 3-5 years. I don't see that tallent level falling off. The main thing I HOPE we have on them is that our assistant coaches will remain stable for the next few years, whereas Saban will be hiring new coordinators every year as they leave for head coaching positions...but when you're winning NC's, that's the price you pay.

I agree that winning at the elite level takes both talent AND coaching, I think we disagree how well that talent needs to be rated by Rivals or Scout to be able to compete with Alabama, Texas, OU, etc. NU has a 5 year recruiting ranking average, per Rivals, of 23.8 yet I would argue they have as much talent as most of the "elite" teams. Go ahead and count the number of Huskers on the All Big XII teams.

 

Also, comparing today's college football landscape to the 80's or even 90's is kind of apples to oranges. In the 90's you could walk through our facilities, and they were second to almost no one. The game day atmosphere could only be found in a few locations. The exposure our athletes received was rivaled by very few. NFL scouts roamed the campus. Today, you can find those same scouts at TCU, Boise St, Cincinatti and other locations that were rarely mentioned in the same sentence as football. The landscape has changed. It wasn't long ago when the top 25 AP rankings consisted of the same 30 teams year in and year out. Today, you've got Utah and Central Michigan talked about along side Oklahoma and LSU.

Doesn't this statement contradict your point? Utah's 5 year recruiting average is currently 63.6 and C. Michigan's 5 year average is 100.6. If that is all it takes to get into the Top 25, then why wouldn't Top 20-25 recruiting classes allow NU to be elite? Point is that coaching can overcome a lot and is a bigger factor in winning than having elite talent is. I also think it shows that the gap in talent between a Top 25 class and a Top 5 class isn't near as large as Rivals or Scout would have you believe. I agree that the landscape has changed since the mid-90's, but to say that you have to have a Top 5 class each year is not realistic either.

[kchusker_chris]

Texas did beat us, then got crushed by Alabama (go ahead and pile on the McCoy injury comments)

I am not sure what MNC game you were watching, but I don't call a 3 point game with 3 minutes to go a "crushing." Texas was in that game to very end and it appeared that they had a legit shot to win that game DESPITE not having the all time winningest QB in NCAA history. Go ahead and try to spin it that Alabama was miles better than Texas.

I do agree w/ you that we could "compete" with Alabama. We might even be able to beat them every once in a while. But to consistently compete at the level that they do will take more than coaching. No disrespect to Bo, but Saban is still a better coach than he is AND Saban has the tallent to dominate for the next 3-5 years. I don't see that tallent level falling off. The main thing I HOPE we have on them is that our assistant coaches will remain stable for the next few years, whereas Saban will be hiring new coordinators every year as they leave for head coaching positions...but when you're winning NC's, that's the price you pay.

I agree that winning at the elite level takes both talent AND coaching, I think we disagree how well that talent needs to be rated by Rivals or Scout to be able to compete with Alabama, Texas, OU, etc. NU has a 5 year recruiting ranking average, per Rivals, of 23.8 yet I would argue they have as much talent as most of the "elite" teams. Go ahead and count the number of Huskers on the All Big XII teams.

 

Also, comparing today's college football landscape to the 80's or even 90's is kind of apples to oranges. In the 90's you could walk through our facilities, and they were second to almost no one. The game day atmosphere could only be found in a few locations. The exposure our athletes received was rivaled by very few. NFL scouts roamed the campus. Today, you can find those same scouts at TCU, Boise St, Cincinatti and other locations that were rarely mentioned in the same sentence as football. The landscape has changed. It wasn't long ago when the top 25 AP rankings consisted of the same 30 teams year in and year out. Today, you've got Utah and Central Michigan talked about along side Oklahoma and LSU.

Doesn't this statement contradict your point? Utah's 5 year recruiting average is currently 63.6 and C. Michigan's 5 year average is 100.6. If that is all it takes to get into the Top 25, then why wouldn't Top 20-25 recruiting classes allow NU to be elite? Point is that coaching can overcome a lot and is a bigger factor in winning than having elite talent is. I also think it shows that the gap in talent between a Top 25 class and a Top 5 class isn't near as large as Rivals or Scout would have you believe. I agree that the landscape has changed since the mid-90's, but to say that you have to have a Top 5 class each year is not realistic either.

 

I figured someone would think it contradicts my point...but if you are happy with top 25 and consider that "elite" then by all means, continue to enjoy 30th ranked recruiting classes. I consider "elite" Texas/Alabama/Florida. USC 5 years ago. Each year they are in the hunt for an NC. They aren't battling for a top 10 finish. They want and NC an have the tallent to win one each year. I agree, we can get into the top 25 without a problem w/ our current classes. We can break the top 15 every once in a while...maybe even the top 5. But to win an NC will take more.

 

I'm not so sure about how our tallent stacks up against the "elite" teams. look at our difference makers (keep looking they are hard to find). shipley/mccoy, tebow/harving, ingram, etc,etc. We don't have the offensive difference makers to bridge that tallent gap. We'll win 10 games a year...but so does virginia tech. I'd rather be a Florida.

[caveman99]

Texas did beat us, then got crushed by Alabama (go ahead and pile on the McCoy injury comments)

I am not sure what MNC game you were watching, but I don't call a 3 point game with 3 minutes to go a "crushing." Texas was in that game to very end and it appeared that they had a legit shot to win that game DESPITE not having the all time winningest QB in NCAA history. Go ahead and try to spin it that Alabama was miles better than Texas.

I do agree w/ you that we could "compete" with Alabama. We might even be able to beat them every once in a while. But to consistently compete at the level that they do will take more than coaching. No disrespect to Bo, but Saban is still a better coach than he is AND Saban has the tallent to dominate for the next 3-5 years. I don't see that tallent level falling off. The main thing I HOPE we have on them is that our assistant coaches will remain stable for the next few years, whereas Saban will be hiring new coordinators every year as they leave for head coaching positions...but when you're winning NC's, that's the price you pay.

I agree that winning at the elite level takes both talent AND coaching, I think we disagree how well that talent needs to be rated by Rivals or Scout to be able to compete with Alabama, Texas, OU, etc. NU has a 5 year recruiting ranking average, per Rivals, of 23.8 yet I would argue they have as much talent as most of the "elite" teams. Go ahead and count the number of Huskers on the All Big XII teams.

 

Also, comparing today's college football landscape to the 80's or even 90's is kind of apples to oranges. In the 90's you could walk through our facilities, and they were second to almost no one. The game day atmosphere could only be found in a few locations. The exposure our athletes received was rivaled by very few. NFL scouts roamed the campus. Today, you can find those same scouts at TCU, Boise St, Cincinatti and other locations that were rarely mentioned in the same sentence as football. The landscape has changed. It wasn't long ago when the top 25 AP rankings consisted of the same 30 teams year in and year out. Today, you've got Utah and Central Michigan talked about along side Oklahoma and LSU.

Doesn't this statement contradict your point? Utah's 5 year recruiting average is currently 63.6 and C. Michigan's 5 year average is 100.6. If that is all it takes to get into the Top 25, then why wouldn't Top 20-25 recruiting classes allow NU to be elite? Point is that coaching can overcome a lot and is a bigger factor in winning than having elite talent is. I also think it shows that the gap in talent between a Top 25 class and a Top 5 class isn't near as large as Rivals or Scout would have you believe. I agree that the landscape has changed since the mid-90's, but to say that you have to have a Top 5 class each year is not realistic either.

 

I figured someone would think it contradicts my point...but if you are happy with top 25 and consider that "elite" then by all means, continue to enjoy 30th ranked recruiting classes. I consider "elite" Texas/Alabama/Florida. USC 5 years ago. Each year they are in the hunt for an NC. They aren't battling for a top 10 finish. They want and NC an have the tallent to win one each year. I agree, we can get into the top 25 without a problem w/ our current classes. We can break the top 15 every once in a while...maybe even the top 5. But to win an NC will take more.

 

I'm not so sure about how our tallent stacks up against the "elite" teams. look at our difference makers (keep looking they are hard to find). shipley/mccoy, tebow/harving, ingram, etc,etc. We don't have the offensive difference makers to bridge that tallent gap. We'll win 10 games a year...but so does virginia tech. I'd rather be a Florida.

I am not sure why you say what you said in the first line, if I am considering a Top 25 class the minimum bar to get into the elite then why should I be happy with 30th ranked classes? I have maintained that I think that NU needs to get up into the Top 20 of the recruiting rankings year end and year out with a good portion of those in the Top 15. The past 5 year cumulative rankings of NU title and title game teams shows this.

 

To be elite I think that NU should look to see what gets them able to win Conference Titles and BCS games, more often than not winning the Big XII gets you a shot in the MNC. Texas and OU are the standard bearers right now. OU has 5 year cumulative ranking averages of 13, 12.4, and 10.4 (11.9 ave) per Scout and 9, 8, 7.6 (8.2 ave) per Rivals over the last 3 years, they won the Conference Title 2 of those years and played for the MNC once as well. In that same timeframe, Texas has had 5 year recruiting averages of 9.4, 9, 8.6 (9 ave) per Scout and 9.8, 10.8, 11 (10.5 ave) per Rivals and won 1 Conference Title and Played for the MNC. It seems that maintaining an average ranking around 10 is what Texas and OU have done and will continue to do; NU has some work to do in this regard clearly, but getting a Top 5 class year end and year out isn't realistic nor possible as not even Texas or OU can do that. Florida doesn't either as their 5 year average this past year was 9.4.

 

You keep mentioning participants in the MNC, well Alabama's 5 year average this year was 11.8 per Scout and 8.2 per Rivals. Texas's 5 year average was 8.4 per Scout and 9.8 per Rivals. The combined 5 year average ranking for the participants of the last 4 BCS title games is 10.2 for BOTH Rivals and Scout. Again it appears the "elite" teams per your definition don't recruit better than an average rank of 10 by any measure. Half of the teams over the last 4 games had 5 year recruiting averages above 10, and a couple were above 15. That is ABOVE 15 for a 5 year CUMULATIVE recruiting average ranking.

 

Being inside the Top 20 for NU puts them in the same talent zone, consistently getting classes around or in the Top 15 would be ideal IMO. A Top 10, heck even a Top 5, class would be nice to have, but I don't think NU can make that happen most years nor do they have to. Callahan had a 4 year average of 16.5 per Rivals and 24.5 per Scout for perspective on a Coach that some believe to be an Ace Recruiter. I think he did a pretty good job, just couldn't develop what he had. We know Bo can develop the talent, I think he needs to improve in recruiting but I don't think he is that far off. Looking at what he could have at Signing Day this year and early returns from next year, I think Bo has the ship on track to perform at a similar or better level than Callahan and I think that is good enough with the excellent Coaching to become elite.

[kchusker_chris]

...all I am saying is find a NC in the last 5-7 years that doesn't contain at least 1 top 3 class. Top ranked classes seem to correlate to national championships. Hopefully we can prove otherwise. Our schedule next year should give us a fairly solid chance.

 

As for the Top 25 statement, since the paragraph was about AP rankings, that is what I meant, not top 25 classes.

[caveman99]

...all I am saying is find a NC in the last 5-7 years that doesn't contain at least 1 top 3 class. Top ranked classes seem to correlate to national championships. Hopefully we can prove otherwise. Our schedule next year should give us a fairly solid chance.

 

As for the Top 25 statement, since the paragraph was about AP rankings, that is what I meant, not top 25 classes.

If you are limiting it to MNC winners, then you have a fair point. I want NU to get those classes as much as you do, I just don't put as much stock on that for NU to be elite again is all. In my opinion a single class doesn't make a team, which is why I choose to look at the 5 year ranking average. Those 5 classes make up the team that is on the field, and by using that measure averaging a class ranking of 10 seems to be where all of the winners and losers of MNC's are holding. Not to mention NU's prime competition to get to a MNC, which has to be done first, Texas and OU are around that level as well.

[kchusker_chris]

...all I am saying is find a NC in the last 5-7 years that doesn't contain at least 1 top 3 class. Top ranked classes seem to correlate to national championships. Hopefully we can prove otherwise. Our schedule next year should give us a fairly solid chance.

 

As for the Top 25 statement, since the paragraph was about AP rankings, that is what I meant, not top 25 classes.

If you are limiting it to MNC winners, then you have a fair point. I want NU to get those classes as much as you do, I just don't put as much stock on that for NU to be elite again is all. In my opinion a single class doesn't make a team, which is why I choose to look at the 5 year ranking average. Those 5 classes make up the team that is on the field, and by using that measure averaging a class ranking of 10 seems to be where all of the winners and losers of MNC's are holding. Not to mention NU's prime competition to get to a MNC, which has to be done first, Texas and OU are around that level as well.

 

...one of the great things about playing in the Big 12 - our season can be deamed a success or failure most often based on that championship game. Not that it's any different in the other elite conferences. I like your average concept, it certinaly holds water. you'd have to weight the classes in years 3, 4 & 5 a little heavier since those are your juniors and seniors which generally are contributing a little more. A highly ranked freshman class doesn't mean quite as much. It's generally a crap shoot, I just like arguing it because there is definately a correlation between top teams and NC's.

 

I play golf a lot. It took me 1 summer when I started to go from 105 - 85. It took me 2 summers to get myself to an 80, and another 2 or 3 summers to drop into the mid 70's consistently. I see recruiting as the same way. It takes a significant jump in recruiting to get over that last little hump. It doesn't mean that I wasn't shooting a 75 every once in a while that 3rd summer, but it was rare. I think it will take a couple of more years, and maybe a Big 12 championship to get NU over that hump in recruiting. Once that happens well see regular top 10 classes and the NC will follow. I just hope our coaches all stay put.

[caveman99]

...all I am saying is find a NC in the last 5-7 years that doesn't contain at least 1 top 3 class. Top ranked classes seem to correlate to national championships. Hopefully we can prove otherwise. Our schedule next year should give us a fairly solid chance.

 

As for the Top 25 statement, since the paragraph was about AP rankings, that is what I meant, not top 25 classes.

If you are limiting it to MNC winners, then you have a fair point. I want NU to get those classes as much as you do, I just don't put as much stock on that for NU to be elite again is all. In my opinion a single class doesn't make a team, which is why I choose to look at the 5 year ranking average. Those 5 classes make up the team that is on the field, and by using that measure averaging a class ranking of 10 seems to be where all of the winners and losers of MNC's are holding. Not to mention NU's prime competition to get to a MNC, which has to be done first, Texas and OU are around that level as well.

 

...one of the great things about playing in the Big 12 - our season can be deamed a success or failure most often based on that championship game. Not that it's any different in the other elite conferences. I like your average concept, it certinaly holds water. you'd have to weight the classes in years 3, 4 & 5 a little heavier since those are your juniors and seniors which generally are contributing a little more. A highly ranked freshman class doesn't mean quite as much. It's generally a crap shoot, I just like arguing it because there is definately a correlation between top teams and NC's.

 

I play golf a lot. It took me 1 summer when I started to go from 105 - 85. It took me 2 summers to get myself to an 80, and another 2 or 3 summers to drop into the mid 70's consistently. I see recruiting as the same way. It takes a significant jump in recruiting to get over that last little hump. It doesn't mean that I wasn't shooting a 75 every once in a while that 3rd summer, but it was rare. I think it will take a couple of more years, and maybe a Big 12 championship to get NU over that hump in recruiting. Once that happens well see regular top 10 classes and the NC will follow. I just hope our coaches all stay put.

Your point about weighting the effect of the class years is valid, the issue is time to do it. Other factors need to be included such as the actual value of the class that enroles or the value of all scholarship players on a team weighted by contribution to the team since we know that the classes that get rated aren't a true evaluation of what a team takes on. Players don't qualify, leave the team, get hurt etc. This is partly why I don't put a great emphasis on these rankings, but they do give a decent broad scope look and using a five year average is a quick way to get an idea of what a team is working with.

 

I agree with your analogy, having continued success will result in consistantly higher classes. I think we have seen enough out of this staff to see that they can be and are getting pretty effective on the trail. The revisions they make in their approach combined with on the field results should be pretty effective IMO. That being said, I think they have enough on the team and coming in to win now at a high level. I am not sure they will need to wait for top 10 recruiting rankings to compete for Big XII titles and hopefully MNC's.