Is there still a stigma attached to JUCO players?

[Blackshirtsguru]

It seems as though some fans on some boards are upset that we're taking several more JUCO's this recruiting season.  I don't see the big deal.  Some of these guys will be around 2-3 years, plus they already have experience at a level higher than high school.  When a team has immediate needs, such as O-line and defensive backs, it is almost impossible to find a high school senior who can jump into the fray.  My question is then, does it bother you that we're taking JUCO's or is it a sign of the times where we need those immediate impact players?

I think every nu fan on any message board gave snyder and ksu all the crap in the world for getting all the jucos but now all the sudden its just fine and dandy. I think its ridiculous personally. Jucos are about as big a shot in the dark as there is. Sure you can find a demorrio out there but you can find a bunch of flops to. We found a bunch last year with a couple that worked out ok.

Another "I write before I think" post made by the one and only Benard!

[Redman]

It seems as though some fans on some boards are upset that we're taking several more JUCO's this recruiting season.  I don't see the big deal.  Some of these guys will be around 2-3 years, plus they already have experience at a level higher than high school.  When a team has immediate needs, such as O-line and defensive backs, it is almost impossible to find a high school senior who can jump into the fray.  My question is then, does it bother you that we're taking JUCO's or is it a sign of the times where we need those immediate impact players?

I think every nu fan on any message board gave snyder and ksu all the crap in the world for getting all the jucos but now all the sudden its just fine and dandy.

 

Every one of them? On any message board? I would think this would be exaggerating the truth a little. By the way......."fine and dandy"? Did you really just use the words.."fine and dandy"?

 

I think its ridiculous personally.

 

What...your response as a whole? Yep, so do I. Just an attempt to add a little Bernard negativity, for the sole reason of being negative.

 

Jucos are about as big a shot in the dark as there is.  Sure you can find a demorrio out there but you can find a bunch of flops to.

 

I personally would risk a few subpar players in the chance of getting a Demorrio. I wonder what college has had all of their recruits become stars?

 

We found a bunch last year with a couple that worked out ok.

 

Ola, Taylor, J. Picou, Bowman, Hardy: All have contributed quite a bit this year. I would say, from these, there are more the couple of ok players. Most did their jobs well. Tomerlin, Moore, and Pastuer will play more next year and be great back-ups. Yes, some simply add depth. Even though they don't start, some Jucos are simply used for depth. This does not mean they are flops.

[chad1971]

It seems as though some fans on some boards are upset that we're taking several more JUCO's this recruiting season. I don't see the big deal. Some of these guys will be around 2-3 years, plus they already have experience at a level higher than high school. When a team has immediate needs, such as O-line and defensive backs, it is almost impossible to find a high school senior who can jump into the fray. My question is then, does it bother you that we're taking JUCO's or is it a sign of the times where we need those immediate impact players?

NO, because when you have no DEPTH - it's better than losing

[HuskerFaithful]

JUCO's would be less of a shot in the dark than a high school recruit. Some great high school players just can't make the transition to college, just like some great college players don't make it in the NFL. I think JUCO's have the following going for them in this regard: 1) they are older and probably more mature; 2) they have faced some sort of adversity, such as not making grades or not being recruited out of high school; 3) they have gained more playing time at a level higher than high school; and 4) Nebraska is only taking the very best of the JUCO talent pool, we are seeking to plug holes in the ship and this is the quickest way of doing so. Now I don't want to see this become a trend, but on the same note, I see why we are doing it this way now and I applaud the staff for doing what it takes to improve the team as quickly as possible. The end result--the product on the field and their success is what we as fans care about.

[formerfan]

Everyone has made some good points, but at the same time, people need to keep in mind that kids wants to play for a program who is challanging for national titles. NU hasn't done that since 2001 and that's why NU has dropped on some high school recruits list as serious destionations. That's why teams like USC, Miami, Florida St, Texas don't have a problem recruiting kids (the fact they are warm weather schools helps them out ALOT). Some recruits just don't want to be that far away from home and any smart person will tell you DISTANCE factors into a HS kids mind 8 times out of 10. The other one i mentioned is "Are they winning and challanging for a National title". The other one is "When will i see playing time.

Not that I disagree with anything you said, curiously, though, did you stick up for Solich the same way that you do for billy c when it comes to recruiting difficulties??

 

Now I don't want to see this become a trend, but on the same note, I see why we are doing it this way now and I applaud the staff for doing what it takes to improve the team as quickly as possible. The end result--the product on the field and their success is what we as fans care about.

FYI, this years class (right now) looks eerily similar to the 2002 class (according to Rivals), ie one of the classes that wasnt good enough for pud.

 

The 2002 class had 21 commits, ([5]-4 and [1]-5 ) they averaged 2.95 per player, and were rated 40th in the country.

 

At this time, the 2006 class has 20 commits, ([4]-4 and [1]-5 ), who average 2.95 stars per player. (This could change with a couple of big commits, obviously)

 

Thoughts???

[chuckd]

FYI, this years class (right now) looks eerily similar to the 2002 class (according to Rivals), ie one of the classes that wasnt good enough for pud.

 

After reading this I was kind of bewildered because I know from looking at past rankings and such that this class seems quite a bit better than the 2002 class, so I did a little research and this is what I found.

 

In 2002, Rivals gave out 60 (5*) rankings. This year there are 37 (5*) rated players. This year there are between 250-300 (4*) rated players, in 2002 there were quite a bit more (so many I didn't feel like adding them all up)

 

What this means is that the number of recruits now cannot be directly compared to 2002. I will expand further.

 

In 2002 Texas had the #1 rated class, here is how they broke down.

(5*) - 6

(4*) - 15

(3*) - 5

 

Last year USC was the #1 rated team, here is how they broke down.

(5*) - 4

(4*) - 11

(3*) - 5

 

What this means (and what I'm getting to is) that in 2002 it was easier to have more "Highly Rated" players than it is in 2006. It is pretty evident that this class is going to finish higher than 40th, which means that when you account for the change in *'s awarded, this class will end up being better statistically than the 2002 class. So the resemblance isn't quite as "eerie" as it may seem.

 

(Also, FWIW, two of the more "highly rated" members of the 2002 class were Curt Dukes and David Horne, both of whom never panned out for the Huskers)

[formerfan]

In 2002, Rivals gave out 60 (5*) rankings.  This year there are 37 (5*) rated players.  This year there are between 250-300 (4*) rated players, in 2002 there were quite a bit more (so many I didn't feel like adding them all up) 

 

Good info In your opinion, do you think that means that Rivals tweaked their ratings system to be a little more strict since 2002, do you think that they follow the same criteria for rating players now, ir is it just that they think they are "less worthy" of higher rankings??

 

I heard an interview with J Crabtree and he kind of explained it, but I dont remember exactly what he said.

 

(Also, FWIW, two of the more "highly rated" members of the 2002 class were Curt Dukes and David Horne, both of whom never panned out for the Huskers)

Agreed, and its something that I have pointed out numerous times. Sometimes, the top players just dont pan out, and sometimes diamond in the rough types suprise. There is no way to predict it.

[chuckd]

Good info In your opinion, do you think that means that Rivals tweaked their ratings system to be a little more strict since 2002, or do you think that they follow the same criteria for rating players now, its just that they think are "less worthy" of higher rankings??

 

I think it's definitely that Rivals has tweaked their method for giving out stars. As many have stated before, rating players is not an exact science. I don't think one should rely totally on star ratings to evaluate how good or bad a class is (and to truely see how it is you need to wait till all or most members are on longer on the team) but I also think you can't just completely ignore the ratings and say they mean nothing. There is an obvious correlation between the teams with highest rated classes and those that have been successful, there are always exceptions, but overall they are a good basis to see what kind of potential talent your team has.

 

I guess what I get from the change in Rival's awarding stars is that what a class looks like starwise looks different now than it did in 2002, but the overall class rankings, when factoring in the change, would be the same. eg USC 2005=Texas 2002 even though the *'s given are different. But comparing NU 2002 to NU 2006 would not correlate because while the star ratings are the same, you have to factor in the difference in how those stars are now given.

[Redman]

Agreed, and its something that I have pointed out numerous times. Sometimes, the top players just dont pan out, and sometimes diamond in the rough types suprise. There is no way to predict it.

I totally agree. All those stars look good for fans and media, but you never know how good the recruiting class is until they actually get to the school, practice, and play in a game.

[NamelessHusker]

Not that I disagree with anything you said, curiously, though, did you stick up for Solich the same way that you do for billy c when it comes to recruiting difficulties??

 

I don't have to. Solich did the talking on the field as did Callahan. Solich VERY RARELY (And i stress that) played freshman as starters or even backups with significant playing time if any. Callahan so far has played more then half of last years recruiting class that are true freshman and played more then half the players recruited as JUCO's. How many True freshman have seen the playing field this year and last? Zach Potter, Barry Turner, Marlon Lucky, Cody Glenn, Grixby....etc

 

Callahan didn't insist on taking every single recruit that Rivals/Scout had as a 4, 3, 2 star. Callahan took only the top rated player in the state (D.J Jones) and ONLY offered guys like Ben Martin and Corey Young after the primary guys fell through and is asking a 4th guy to walkon. Solich would have offered each one of them to begin with without looking at other targets outside the state first.

 

Solich never promised kids recruited immediate playing time. In fact 70% sat on the bench untill their Junior season before they saw any significant playing time. Solich played the Seniority card, Callahan plays the best guys. Period