beanman Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 http://bigrednetwork.com/story/a_brief_history_of_husker_recruiting_1990-99/ I didn't see this posted anywhere else, but if it is MODS go ahead and delete. Interesting read about our recruiting classes of the 90s. Quote Link to comment
kchusker_chris Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 don't post that - it goes against the "Osborne never had highly ranked classes/players" theory that is spewed so often to defend Pelini's classes. Quote Link to comment
jsneb83 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well comparing Pelini's first five recruiting classes to TO's recruiting classes from the 90s is unfair to begin with. Quote Link to comment
kchusker_chris Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well comparing Pelini's first five recruiting classes to TO's recruiting classes from the 90s is unfair to begin with. because the weather was warmer back in the 90's? Quote Link to comment
jsneb83 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well comparing Pelini's first five recruiting classes to TO's recruiting classes from the 90s is unfair to begin with. because the weather was warmer back in the 90's? Yeah because the weather is the only reason a recruit commits to a school. Quote Link to comment
kchusker_chris Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well comparing Pelini's first five recruiting classes to TO's recruiting classes from the 90s is unfair to begin with. because the weather was warmer back in the 90's? Yeah because the weather is the only reason a recruit commits to a school. just wasn't sure what was so "unfair" about it...i'm sure people can dream something up to avoid admitting there's a gap in tallent/recruiting. I can think of 1... ...we can't pay our players like we used to back then Quote Link to comment
jsneb83 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well comparing Pelini's first five recruiting classes to TO's recruiting classes from the 90s is unfair to begin with. because the weather was warmer back in the 90's? Yeah because the weather is the only reason a recruit commits to a school. just wasn't sure what was so "unfair" about it...i'm sure people can dream something up to avoid admitting there's a gap in tallent/recruiting. I can think of 1... ...we can't pay our players like we used to back then Sorry, didn't catch what you were trying to say. What I meant was is that it is a little unfair to compare recruiting classes when one was an established program for years with an experienced coach and a program that was on the brink of a collapse with a new head coach. That was sort of what I was getting at. Quote Link to comment
kchusker_chris Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 how long until you can consider us "established" again? 9,10,10,9 wins is very similar to Osborne's run late 80's, early 90's. That can only be used also to defend Pelini though right I'd say we're established. And brief down periods (really it was just a few bad years though people make it out to be as bad as a 30 year bowless streak) are experienced at every program in the nation...from Alabama and Texas to USC, Michigan and Ohio State. It's part of football. In 06/07 these kids were 6th or 7th graders...Pelini should be able to sell "established" without a problem today. Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Cracked the top 5 twice in the best era of the program with arguably the best college football coach of all time? It's fair to say Nebraska has never been a recruiting juggernaut. 1 Quote Link to comment
EZ-E Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 It appears that when we say anything positive about the staff that we are "defending and making excuses." But really people are looking for any possible reason to bash the staff. If Peat would have committed there wouldn't be a cult of people that believe all of these false perceptions of the staff. Im sorry, but there are a lot of people that think they know a lot more than they actually do. 2 Quote Link to comment
jsneb83 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 how long until you can consider us "established" again? 9,10,10,9 wins is very similar to Osborne's run late 80's, early 90's. That can only be used also to defend Pelini though right I'd say we're established. And brief down periods (really it was just a few bad years though people make it out to be as bad as a 30 year bowless streak) are experienced at every program in the nation...from Alabama and Texas to USC, Michigan and Ohio State. It's part of football. In 06/07 these kids were 6th or 7th graders...Pelini should be able to sell "established" without a problem today. I would say we are established now, but in Bo's first couple seasons, we were still trying to get our name back on the map, so we weren't really able to pursue the amount of high quality recruits that we can now. Bo was rebuilding a program while TO had an established program with 20+ years of consistently winning 9+ games. Now I'm not letting Bo off the hook per say, but I just think it's a little unfair to conpare Bo to TO during the greatest run of his career. Quote Link to comment
kchusker_chris Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 how long until you can consider us "established" again? 9,10,10,9 wins is very similar to Osborne's run late 80's, early 90's. That can only be used also to defend Pelini though right I'd say we're established. And brief down periods (really it was just a few bad years though people make it out to be as bad as a 30 year bowless streak) are experienced at every program in the nation...from Alabama and Texas to USC, Michigan and Ohio State. It's part of football. In 06/07 these kids were 6th or 7th graders...Pelini should be able to sell "established" without a problem today. I would say we are established now, but in Bo's first couple seasons, we were still trying to get our name back on the map, so we weren't really able to pursue the amount of high quality recruits that we can now. Bo was rebuilding a program while TO had an established program with 20+ years of consistently winning 9+ games. Now I'm not letting Bo off the hook per say, but I just think it's a little unfair to conpare Bo to TO during the greatest run of his career. really the only ones trying to compare the two are the people saying "Osborne never had top rated classes and still won" - when in reality he had top 15 classes most years, including some highly ranked players...hense the reason he won. here's another question for you. do you think the Huskers were a "unique" program back then? (maybe for another topic). I saw the Huskers of the 80's/90's as very innovative. They did things differently...which is a big reason they overcome the lake of a top 5 class every year. They could take the 15th ranked class and win. now, do you think we are a "unique" program today? and this means nothing about culture, fan base, etc. I'm talking on the field, coaching, etc. When I hear "multiple" to me that means we're just trying to copy a bunch of other programs. I thought we had a pretty unique defense...but that applied mostly to the Big12 style of play, and with this last year the defense lost some of it's luster. I guess I personally don't see much unique about the Huskers...so where are we going to gain our edge? Won't be recruiting. Doesn't look to be coaching. Where's the innovation at? Quote Link to comment
RedRedJarvisRedwine Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 "ESTABLISHED"- to me this program is still and probably always will be established. "RELAVENT"- this is the word I want to hear when Nebraska is discussed nationally. Quote Link to comment
krc1995 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 very interesting comparision. I'm very glad that Richardson went to Miami. Quote Link to comment
HuskerFowler Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Well comparing Pelini's first five recruiting classes to TO's recruiting classes from the 90s is unfair to begin with. because the weather was warmer back in the 90's? Yeah because the weather is the only reason a recruit commits to a school. just wasn't sure what was so "unfair" about it...i'm sure people can dream something up to avoid admitting there's a gap in tallent/recruiting. I can think of 1... ...we can't pay our players like we used to back then Oh come on man. Are you seriously comparing Pelinis first 5 years of being a coach to the best decade of college football (arguably) by any team. Are you that negative that you can sit there and tell me that this is a fair comparison? If i recall Osborne took over a championship calibur team. Pelini not so much. Lets see how we are ranked after having a coach for 20 years and win back to back national championships. If Pelini cant pull in a top 5 class after playing in a national championship, let alone winning one then i will say he cant recruit. IMO you can almost take out Osborne and put in Pelini for the the first few years in the 90s. Averaging 9 wins cant win the big one classes anywhere from 15-20. Then we start playing for the NC and after arguably the best team in college football(95) he pulls in a very highly ranked class. I would hope that if Pelini would win the NC and beat the piss out of the other team 64-24 that we would have one of the top classes in the nation. Very unfair comparison. If you wanted a more fair comparison you could compare the first five classes, even then Osborne took over a program in alot better shape, and im not sure if they even rated classes back then. I will also say with the inception of Rivals and all the experts they have come A LONG way since they started rating classes. With all the advances in communications almost no one flys under the radar (whitaker) anymore and most every 5 start pans out, more and more kids every dyear are being rated more accurately. 2 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.