How long is going to take for us to make a recruiting splash?

[Blaze1up]

Recruit ranking is way over rated, 93' Husker recruits weren't even ranked except in the Wallace.

[Bleedin_Red]

Thus far our classes have been OK but nothing to brag about, IMO this is the class where we turn a corner and start recruiting like a power. Not saying we'll be Texas/USC/'bama but if we evaluate and develop well we'll have the talent to compete with those teams.

 

Averaging the Rivals team rankings for each team from 2008-2010, the results are:

 

1. Alabama - 2.3

2. USC - 4.3

3. Florida - 5.3

4. LSU - 6.3

5. Texas - 7.3

6t. Florida State - 8.7

6t. Oklahoma - 8.7

8. Georgia - 9.3

9. Ohio State - 10.7

10. UCLA - 11.7

11. Miami - 12.0

12. Notre Dame - 12.3

13. Michigan - 12.7

14. Auburn - 14.3

15. Tennessee - 18.0

16. Texas A&M - 18.3

17. South Carolina - 19.3

18t. Oregon - 21.3

18t. Virginia Tech - 21.3

20. Ole Miss - 21.7

21. Clemson - 22.7

22. North Carolina - 23.3

23. Penn State - 26.3

24. Nebraska - 26.7

 

IMO, 24th overall is better than okay. I'm not saying it is outstanding, but good or very good seem like more appropriate adjectives than okay.

 

We'll see how this class ends up, but there are specifics unique to this class that won't be the case every year.

 

1. We have a commit from a Rivals top 100 OT from Florida, who probably wouldn't have committed if he weren't a legacy.

 

2. There are two 4 stars in Nebraska this year. This has happened twice since 2004 (2008 and 2011).

 

3. We are likely the favorite to land a potential 5-star out of Texas. Would we be the favorite if his brother weren't on the team?

 

I disagree that we will recruit like a power. I think that we are making a step in the right direction though, and while our 2008-2010 classes all fell in the 20-30 range, I believe our future classes will land in the 15-25 range more often than not. I just don't see us with class averages similar to the top 14 teams on the list above.

 

This is great work Andy.

 

I agree with what you said in that we will pull in classes that are in the top 15-25 and every so often pull in a top 5 class.

 

Bo and staff have made a lot of great improvements in recruting but to think they will be able to compete Anyday, Anytime, Anywhere if they produce top 25 classes is not realistic in my opinion.

 

Look at the list. To be relevant, they need to produce 1-15. The top 25 won't get ur done. Recruiting has turned into a 24/7, 7 day a week job for most of the staff.

 

To be a top 10 or top 5 school we have go through the top 10 schools. That means we have to be close to them in recruiting, not better or matching but close. Rankings are just rankings to certain extent and are very subjective based on who is doing the rankings, but a 4 star is usually better than a 3 star and a 5 star is always better than a 3.

 

This staff does a tremendous job with the recruits they sign but I am not happy seeing top 25 in recruiting classes and I bet Bo and staff will get better numbers as they gain positive momentum going forward.

 

 

Really??? How is Marlon Lucky doing these days in comparison to Brandon Jackson???

[bshirt]

My point is this, I am not going to say that I am satisfied with top 25/26 recruiting classes. If you want to accept 26th place for 2008-2010, you can post that you are ok with it.

 

I personally believe this staff needs to get better and rank in the top 15. Even though I believe this staff does a great job with the classes the have brought in and who they inherited, they are still ranked in the top 26 per your research.

 

There are going to be 3 stars that turn out to be great. I am not sold that 2 stars athletes or 3 star athletes are going to better than 4 and 5 star recruits. Those stars are what make up the rankings, so I would like to see us higher than 26.

 

I am confident that top 15 classes will lead to conference championships, which lead to BCS bowls, which possibly lead to playing for national championships. This is what I believe.

 

edit:

If you go back 5 years and research the last five BCS national champions, they are listed in the top 5 of your research. (bama, florida(2), lsu, texas)

 

So the schools winning the hardware are all in the top 5 for the last three years in recruiting.

4 schools, 5 national championships and all are in the top 5 in recruiting for the years listed 2008 to 2010.

 

I would like to see Bo with top 15 classes or better.

 

Look what BC did with his great recruiting. R. Zook at Florida & now Illinois. Notre Dame for years, etc, etc.

 

I guess Boise St, Utah, Navy and so forth must have been top 15 recruiting classes the last five or more years too, right?

 

Heh.....sure, all things considered equal I agree high star ratings are a good thing. But "coaching" is by far the biggest variable regarding results on the field. In a dream world sure it would be great to have top 5 recruiting classes and a Bo quality DC & OC at NU.

 

I just can't imagine NU being able to do that with any consistency whatsoever. We can, however, and have proved for decades we can play with anybody with great coaching (Devaney, TO & now Bo) and mid 20 ranked recruits.

 

We'll prove that again.

[zoogs]

I guess most teams that recruit like Boise, Utah, and Navy are doing well these days, right?

 

It's the exact same thing as 5-stars vs 3-stars. You can point out some wildly successful 3-stars and some 5-star busts, but that doesn't change the fact that say, 40% of 5-stars succeed while 6% of 3-stars do. The fact that TCU or Boise has done a lot with very little, doesn't mean that having lower ranked recruit classes is the GOAL. I think we both see that, so there's not really much disagreement here. It comes down to the coaching, yes, but no matter who you have at coach you strive for better classes. Of course rankings don't determine the best classes perfectly. How well we get the players we target, does.

 

And BC didn't have 'great' recruiting classes. He had one, in 2005. The rest of his classes were not ranked that far ahead of Bo's, and we are definitely headed up in recruiting under Bo. So the difference to me is not that much. And for his moderately underachieving 2005 class (which, just like Marlon Lucky, produced solidly, but not quite up to its crazy expectations), BC also turned out a wildly overachieving 2007 class that is the current bedrock of this team.

 

In just a year (or two), if we struggle, Bo will start having to field questions like "You've recruited Top 25 classes the past several years, but you've won courtesy of the previous coach's players. Where are your guys stepping up?" Hopefully, we'll see some more of this (Bo's guys stepping up) soon.

[AndyDufresne]

I guess most teams that recruit like Boise, Utah, and Navy are doing well these days, right?

 

Not all 2-stars are created equally. Some are busts, and some go on to become all-Americans. Identifying which is which is obviously not a crapshoot, but comes down to the ability of your staff to identify the talent and then develop it. Obviously, Boise St. and Utah are better at this than most other mid-majors. Many who follow recruiting make the mistake of lumping every player with the same star rating into one big group. Is the 3-star who commits to Ohio State with offers from every Big 10 school the same as the 3-star who commits to Northwestern with offers from a few mid-majors, Syracuse, and Duke? Is the 3-star defensive player with no big offers that has been evaluated by Beamer and Foster at Virginia Tech the same as the 3-star defensive player with offers from Missouri, Michigan, Kansas, and UCLA (teams with pretty unremarkable defenses under their current staffs)?

 

It's the exact same thing as 5-stars vs 3-stars. You can point out some wildly successful 3-stars and some 5-star busts, but that doesn't change the fact that say, 40% of 5-stars succeed while 6% of 3-stars do.

 

What is your definition of success? I think your figures are greatly overexaggerated, but I would like to see the source if you actually pulled them from somewhere.

 

The fact that TCU or Boise has done a lot with very little, doesn't mean that having lower ranked recruit classes is the GOAL. I think we both see that, so there's not really much disagreement here. It comes down to the coaching, yes, but no matter who you have at coach you strive for better classes. Of course rankings don't determine the best classes perfectly. How well we get the players we target, does.

 

Agree.

 

And BC didn't have 'great' recruiting classes. He had one, in 2005. The rest of his classes were not ranked that far ahead of Bo's, and we are definitely headed up in recruiting under Bo. So the difference to me is not that much. And for his moderately underachieving 2005 class (which, just like Marlon Lucky, produced solidly, but not quite up to its crazy expectations), BC also turned out a wildly overachieving 2007 class that is the current bedrock of this team.

 

I would consider a 13th ranked class to be pretty great as far as rankings go. I also wouldn't say it is wildly overachieving as of now. If they are the backbone of a top 5 team, I will give you that. If they are the backbone of a team ranked 10th-15th, wouldn't you say that is on par with expectations based on where Rivals had them ranked? Iowa's 39th ranked 2006 class would qualify as an overachiever in my book.

 

In just a year (or two), if we struggle, Bo will start having to field questions like "You've recruited Top 25 classes the past several years, but you've won courtesy of the previous coach's players. Where are your guys stepping up?" Hopefully, we'll see some more of this (Bo's guys stepping up) soon.

 

Half of the starting roster, and most of the backups and special teamers this year will be made up of guys from the 2008 and later classes. We'll find out soon.

[kchusker_chris]

 

It's the exact same thing as 5-stars vs 3-stars. You can point out some wildly successful 3-stars and some 5-star busts, but that doesn't change the fact that say, 40% of 5-stars succeed while 6% of 3-stars do.

 

What is your definition of success? I think your figures are greatly overexaggerated, but I would like to see the source if you actually pulled them from somewhere.

 

In just a year (or two), if we struggle, Bo will start having to field questions like "You've recruited Top 25 classes the past several years, but you've won courtesy of the previous coach's players. Where are your guys stepping up?" Hopefully, we'll see some more of this (Bo's guys stepping up) soon.

 

Half of the starting roster, and most of the backups and special teamers this year will be made up of guys from the 2008 and later classes. We'll find out soon.

 

I am guessing he was refering to the statistics someone put together a year or two ago regarding all-americans and their star ranking. I'm not sure it was 40%, but it was a fairly high number in comparison to the 3-stars. 5 star recruits have a 1 in 9 chance of beeing an All-American...3 stars a 1 in 50.

 

Again, Rival's ranks potential. Whether or not that potential is utilized is up to the school the recruit signs with. IMO, we need players that have a lot of potential...it gives us the best chance to win. If that is a highly ranked, or lower ranked team so be it. Don't care, it's all about what our coaches can do with potential. I think Rivals team rankings tend to do that fairly well. Others don't think so. That your opinion...usually based on a few guys that made it, or a few that were busts. Don't disregard the big picture though. The overall numbers tend to back up Rivals so I'm sticking with them.

 

As for half the starting roster being 2008 or beyond...not sure where you get that. (there have been 3 classes since 2008 on this roster so it would be logical to have a few players scattered throughout the 1st team - and maybe you're counting special teams in your percentage) But, without even looking I can give you: Kunalic, Moore, Allen, Crick, Amakamara, Gomes/Asante, Hagg, Jones X 2, Williams, McNeil, Gilleylen, Lee, Helu. All will probably start at some point in the season and I think all of those were in the 2006, 2007 classes. There may be more but that requires effort.

[zoogs]

It's the exact same thing as 5-stars vs 3-stars. You can point out some wildly successful 3-stars and some 5-star busts, but that doesn't change the fact that say, 40% of 5-stars succeed while 6% of 3-stars do.

 

What is your definition of success? I think your figures are greatly overexaggerated, but I would like to see the source if you actually pulled them from somewhere.

 

Pulled them out of a hat. I'm sure they are wrong. But there's something like 40-50 5-stars a year, versus something like 800 3-stars, no? 6% of 800 gives 48, 40% of 50 gives 20. The # on the 3-stars probably could stand to increase a bit. Maybe the #'s on the 5-stars too. I was too lazy to actually look into this.

 

I would consider a 13th ranked class to be pretty great as far as rankings go. I also wouldn't say it is wildly overachieving as of now. If they are the backbone of a top 5 team, I will give you that. If they are the backbone of a team ranked 10th-15th, wouldn't you say that is on par with expectations based on where Rivals had them ranked? Iowa's 39th ranked 2006 class would qualify as an overachiever in my book.

 

hm, I had thought the '07 class was ranked lower. But I do think that they are doing better than on par - even after losing Jaivorio and Lawrence. Prince, Asante, Crick, Hagg, Helu, Murillo, Paul, Lee - to name a few - we are really counting on this class. Iowa's class sounds better, but I still count the '07 class as overachievers based on the degree to which they've picked up the slack for us. But you're right, it is closer to 'on par' than 'overachieving.' Just that I was going more by the # of contributors/starters it gave us, rather than the quality of the team. But both are important.

 

In just a year (or two), if we struggle, Bo will start having to field questions like "You've recruited Top 25 classes the past several years, but you've won courtesy of the previous coach's players. Where are your guys stepping up?" Hopefully, we'll see some more of this (Bo's guys stepping up) soon.

 

Half of the starting roster, and most of the backups and special teamers this year will be made up of guys from the 2008 and later classes. We'll find out soon.

 

Yep. Part of this is that we have precious few people from the 2007 and earlier classes left. But I hope that a lot of those backups we've been excited about that are waiting in the wings are going to flourish now.

[AndyDufresne]

 

It's the exact same thing as 5-stars vs 3-stars. You can point out some wildly successful 3-stars and some 5-star busts, but that doesn't change the fact that say, 40% of 5-stars succeed while 6% of 3-stars do.

 

What is your definition of success? I think your figures are greatly overexaggerated, but I would like to see the source if you actually pulled them from somewhere.

 

In just a year (or two), if we struggle, Bo will start having to field questions like "You've recruited Top 25 classes the past several years, but you've won courtesy of the previous coach's players. Where are your guys stepping up?" Hopefully, we'll see some more of this (Bo's guys stepping up) soon.

 

Half of the starting roster, and most of the backups and special teamers this year will be made up of guys from the 2008 and later classes. We'll find out soon.

 

I am guessing he was refering to the statistics someone put together a year or two ago regarding all-americans and their star ranking. I'm not sure it was 40%, but it was a fairly high number in comparison to the 3-stars. 5 star recruits have a 1 in 9 chance of beeing an All-American...3 stars a 1 in 50.

 

Again, Rival's ranks potential. Whether or not that potential is utilized is up to the school the recruit signs with. IMO, we need players that have a lot of potential...it gives us the best chance to win. If that is a highly ranked, or lower ranked team so be it. Don't care, it's all about what our coaches can do with potential. I think Rivals team rankings tend to do that fairly well. Others don't think so. That your opinion...usually based on a few guys that made it, or a few that were busts. Don't disregard the big picture though. The overall numbers tend to back up Rivals so I'm sticking with them.

 

As for half the starting roster being 2008 or beyond...not sure where you get that. (there have been 3 classes since 2008 on this roster so it would be logical to have a few players scattered throughout the 1st team - and maybe you're counting special teams in your percentage) But, without even looking I can give you: Kunalic, Moore, Allen, Crick, Amakamara, Gomes/Asante, Hagg, Jones X 2, Williams, McNeil, Gilleylen, Lee, Helu. All will probably start at some point in the season and I think all of those were in the 2006, 2007 classes. There may be more but that requires effort.

 

Asante is gone and Gomes is a 2009 recruit. I don't consider Moore, Kunalic, D.J. Jones, or Gilleylen as starters. I think we will see:

 

RG - Henry (2008)

LT - Sirles (2009) or Hardrick (2010)

WR - Kinnie (2009)

TE - Cotton (2008) or Reed (2008) - Remember, McNeill is now considered a receiver

DE - Meredith (2008)

DT - Steinkuhler (2008)

LB - Fisher (2008) or Whaley (2008)

LB - Compton (2008) or David (2010)

S - Gomes (2009)

S - Smith (2008) or Cooper (2010)

CB - Dennard (2008)

 

That is half the starting 22 right there. I think one can make the argument that Burkhead (2009) could be considered a co-starter, and I didn't list fullback Legate (2008).

[ozThusker]

The whole notion of using so and so as examples of 2 or 3*'s to succeed is an annoying mythical approach set by many nebraska fans when our recruiting is going bad. Everybody uses examples of West Virginia and V-tech, but even then neither of those teams have had national champion squads. While USC, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma have (while also being much more consistent).

 

While we have some 3* that will play this year that are very good (prince being a perfect example), a lot of times this can be a simple flaw to the system. Prince didn't go to many camps to get his exposure, his talent was always top notch, but the exposure was not. Same might result in Brent Qvale of North Dakota.

 

I believe the key is those consistent top 15 classes, thrown in with some under the radar "true athletes". You can't take an under the radar guy that just has huge stats, he needs to have athletic ability. A great year might happen here and there, but to be consistently in the top 10 you need top 15 classes. Factually it hits you directly in the face time after time with statistics. If you had 10 grand and said you have a 30% chance of doubling it at this casino, and a 5% at this one nobody in their right minds would go to the 5% casino. While every once in a while that 5% will win and the 30% will not. This still does not mean your going to take that chance. Same applies with recruiting....not every 4-5 star is going to pan out....but if you have 5 highly ranked guys and 5 under the radar guys chances are 2-3 of the highly ranked ones will do something while probably 1 will of the other 5.

[AndyDufresne]

The whole notion of using so and so as examples of 2 or 3*'s to succeed is an annoying mythical approach set by many nebraska fans when our recruiting is going bad. Everybody uses examples of West Virginia and V-tech, but even then neither of those teams have had national champion squads. While USC, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma have (while also being much more consistent).

 

From the 2002-2007 classes, Nebraska has had 7 Rivals 3 stars named to either the AP or Coaches all-conference 1st team. There were 74 total 3 star commits from these classes, so 9.5% made 1st team. Nebraska had 3 Rivals 4 stars named 1st team out of a total of 37 four star commits for 8.1%. Over this particular period of time with a fairly good sample size, the 3 stars definitely outperformed the 4 stars as far as 1st team all-conference recognition.

 

While we have some 3* that will play this year that are very good (prince being a perfect example), a lot of times this can be a simple flaw to the system. Prince didn't go to many camps to get his exposure, his talent was always top notch, but the exposure was not. Same might result in Brent Qvale of North Dakota.

 

What about the other possible 3-star starters on our preseason top 10 squad - R. Henry, Williams, Sirles, Caputo (not even a 3 star), M. Jones, Helu, Kinnie, McNeill, Cotton, Crick, Allen, Meredith, Fisher, Compton, Dennard, Smith, and West? Crick wasn't even a 1st team all-state player his senior year in Nebraska and his stats were not that great. He is the best player in college football according to SI.

 

I believe the key is those consistent top 15 classes, thrown in with some under the radar "true athletes". You can't take an under the radar guy that just has huge stats, he needs to have athletic ability. A great year might happen here and there, but to be consistently in the top 10 you need top 15 classes. Factually it hits you directly in the face time after time with statistics.

 

So you dismiss West Virginia and Virginia Tech above as not having national championship squads, but then state that you need consistent top 15 classes to consistently be in the top 10. Both West Virginia and Virginia Tech have appeared in the final AP top 10 three out of the last 5 years. Only Texas, USC, and Ohio State have more top 10 appearances, and they all have multiple classes in the top 10 (top 5 for USC and Texas).

 

See my post above comparing Rivals team rankings to Sagarin rankings for the last 2 seasons. If you are going to reference facts, please post them.

[Billyball]

For many reasons, looking at that list it is not just unlikely that we perennially attract a top 10 class,it is a pipe dream. The talent has moved south and east. Those kids in the vast majority of cases won't give us even a sniff. Texas,your talking about sloppy second or thirds , or fourth choice in almost every instance, Green hopefully an exception. We do not have and likely will not have a program that will cause the elite athletes that grow up in these tropical climes, watch teams in their area stacked with kids like them dominate the top 10, en mass say " Gee I want to spend the next four winters In Nebraska". We should set our sights on between 15 and 30 with a very rare 5 star every few years, a few four stars hopefully each year, with the main contingent 3 stars.

 

The good news is that the league we are moving to; all the teams have the same geographic challenges. The competition will not be as tough as the sec. So by competing well in conference, we should open new recruiting areas, albeit not with the concentration of elite athletes that say Fla, Texas OU has.

 

You won't win NC s with this situation, where the elite are stacked with four and five recruits in every class, but we can play very good FB in the B10, go to good bowls and keep a winning tradition with the greatest fans in FB. Times have changed and I hope some fans manage their expectations.