LJS checks in on our top ten recruiting class.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the surface, without looking at the specifics of who the players are... yes. Ultimately recruiting is a numbers game. Trying to bring in enough players that you have a few that are "hits". The more players you bring in, the more likely you are to get a "hit". That's why oversigning is so important to the SEC.

 

 

The over signing the SEC does is unbelievable how it helps them. Yes, it's a numbers game.

 

Let's say a school like LSU averages 25 players per class. That means in 4 years, they will have 100 kids come on campus and try to make the field.

Now, lets go the extreme the other way and claim Nebraska sticks to the 85 limit and they don't cut anyone (not really realistic because players always leave for various reasons, but play long for a minute). That means the average class size is 21 kids. Every year, LSU would be bringing in 4 more kids than Nebraska. 16 more kids over a 4 year span.

 

Now, let's say LSU goes beyond that and every year actually has 28 kids commit to play for them but come signing day they say.....oh...sorry Johnny, we just don't have a spot for you. Or, sometimes that even happens after signing day.

 

That's another 12 kids that they have access to to make decisions on.

 

Over signing is wrong is so many ways.

[Junior]

 

 

 

 

 

On the surface, without looking at the specifics of who the players are... yes. Ultimately recruiting is a numbers game. Trying to bring in enough players that you have a few that are "hits". The more players you bring in, the more likely you are to get a "hit". That's why oversigning is so important to the SEC.

 

 

The over signing the SEC does is unbelievable how it helps them. Yes, it's a numbers game.

 

Let's say a school like LSU averages 25 players per class. That means in 4 years, they will have 100 kids come on campus and try to make the field.

Now, lets go the extreme the other way and claim Nebraska sticks to the 85 limit and they don't cut anyone (not really realistic because players always leave for various reasons, but play long for a minute). That means the average class size is 21 kids. Every year, LSU would be bringing in 4 more kids than Nebraska. 16 more kids over a 4 year span.

 

Now, let's say LSU goes beyond that and every year actually has 28 kids commit to play for them but come signing day they say.....oh...sorry Johnny, we just don't have a spot for you. Or, sometimes that even happens after signing day.

 

That's another 12 kids that they have access to to make decisions on.

 

Over signing is wrong is so many ways.

 

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that is the reality of it.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I simultaneously understand and devalue the importance of recruiting rankings. Ultimately, what matters is what recruits add to the program by their performance on the field and there have been cases of two star recruits contributing more to their program than four and five stars. Some five stars physically peak in high school and don't improve much in college whereas some two stars don't reach their physical peak until college and then surpass their five star counterparts.

 

But the ratings are all about likelihoods. A five star is more likely than a two star to be a great player. So schools who rake in more four and five stars are maximizing their chances at being a big program.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

 

 

I'm sure we all remember the call of "ZOMG! We have a top ten recruiting class!", that bubbled out earlier, so I'm pretty glad someone followed up, because it's now scratching around the top 25.

The excitement around the early top 10 class ranking was and should be that it signals an emphasis toward early recruiting of top-level talent by this staff. As recruiting has sped up, the successful programs have been those that put in the effort early and often. This should yield better all-around classes. You could also suggest the early recruiting Booms are products/indicators of new (and potentially more successful) recruiting strategies, which includes the hiring of a recruiting-only staff, recruiting-oriented events, and changes to our recruiting footprint.

 

The early commitment of strong talent will allow the coaches more time to add 'good on good' (or increase the quantity of our quality) in this class, compared to the late Jan push we have seen in the past. We are sitting at 10 of 17/18 in July with multiple guys visiting this month, who are thought to have Nebraska high on their lists (i.e., OG Jackson Perry, LB Troy Henderson Jr, S Hunter Dale, DE Jake Pickard).

 

Also, I have not seen too much of the sporadic recruiting for this class, though I would agree that was the trend for the last few recruiting cycles. Obviously, we don't get to see all of the work that is put in behind the scenes, but if you just look at what has transpired since signing day. February saw 4 commits (our highest ranked 4 recruits by the way). March had 2 commits. April had the Spring Game (with a solid list of 2015 targets visiting) and 4 commits (though the WR decommited after we got Stringfellows' transfer, well, or so we thought). May had 1 commit and 2 transfers (one that stuck, and one that didn't). Now, June had no commitments but did have two BRW, with two weeks of numerous 2015-2016 talent coming to Nebraska. We just hit into July, which includes a recruiting dead period, but as I mentioned, we have ~4 recruits planning on visiting. That is a solid start and continuum for recruiting this year. On top of the effort for the 2015 class, we are already hearing about highly-projected 2016 prospects with Nebraska at the top of their lists (e.g., DT Garrett Rand, OT Matt Farniok, QB Tristen Wallace, OG John Raridon, RB/LB Devin White, OG Bryan Brokop, S Brittain Brown, OT Sean Foster, CB Chad Clay).

[jsneb83]

 

 

"we have a 45th rated class......meh, ratings schmatings, stars don't mean anything."

"we have a top ten rated class! Man we got some really good players coming in this year!"

If you have a top ten class, you don't really need the recruiting services to tell you how good they are.

 

but the recruiting services are the ones that rate it as a top ten class....

Correct, but if you look at the recruits a school brings in, you don't need the rankings to tell you the quality of prospects that school is getting. Example, if you took a look at Bama's commits (film, measurables, etc.) you would expect they would have one of the top classes, because of the quality of players they are bringing in.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

If we're at #12 based on star rating, I'm not sure anything else really matters. It should always be about quality over quantity.

 

I disagree. If we take five 4* players and ten 3* players, and Wisconsin takes five 4* players and thirteen 3* players, well our overall star # is higher... but would you really say we had a better class?

 

Would you say it was worse?

 

 

On the surface, without looking at the specifics of who the players are... yes. Ultimately recruiting is a numbers game. Trying to bring in enough players that you have a few that are "hits". The more players you bring in, the more likely you are to get a "hit". That's why oversigning is so important to the SEC.

 

So, it's worse or better based on the hypotheticals of the depth chart. That's silly.

[HuskerNationNick]

With the number of scholarships we have available, I would be surprised if we cracked top 25 come February.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

It's more important to me to hang onto the recruits that have pledged and fill it in with quality recruits, than it is to hang onto a subjective ranking from a recruiting site.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

This is still mostly the class that has us all excited when it was ranked highly early on. And most of us knew that the rating would nose dive due to the short numbers this year. Honestly nothing to see here. Good job by the coaches getting in on guys early and guys that were very high on our board. Imagine the shitshow this site would be if we only had 3 or 4 verbals right now and having passed on several in state kids. Full meltdown.

[Warrior10]

I also liked the perspective that this article gives. I think it should be noted that while some were pumping the "top 10 class" a few months ago, many who really follow recruiting have said since the beginning that if this class (with the low numbers) ended in the top 15-20 it would be quite remarkable. That doesn't mean we aren't getting quality kids, just meant scholarship limitations and the rating system don't work in our favor this year. So yes people who don't follow recruiting closely and media members (who were just taking advantage of good news for stories) "pumped up" the ratings the last couple months.....however some people on this board, and others, have saw this coming for awhile.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

I also liked the perspective that this article gives. I think it should be noted that while some were pumping the "top 10 class" a few months ago, many who really follow recruiting have said since the beginning that if this class (with the low numbers) ended in the top 15-20 it would be quite remarkable. That doesn't mean we aren't getting quality kids, just meant scholarship limitations and the rating system don't work in our favor this year. So yes people who don't follow recruiting closely and media members (who were just taking advantage of good news for stories) "pumped up" the ratings the last couple months.....however some people on this board, and others, have saw this coming for awhile.

Good stuff. Like I said, the excitement around the early top 10 recruiting ranking was more about seeing a shift in recruiting philosophy and effort than hanging our hats on a high class ranking.

[ObamaRocks91]

A lot of our recruits ratings have dropped. Why? B/c many are not going to camps put on by rating services. That right there tells you everything you need to know about rankings recruits and why some players get ranked higher or lower. You pay to come to our camp we'll be more likely to rate you higher. Its all business and these rankings are becoming more and more biased and irrevelant.

 

Please name one or "a lot" of our recruits ranking that has dropped.

 

Eric Lee and Avery Anderson have jumped up in the rankings quite a bit after camping much of the summer.

 

Bussey has sky-rocketed up the rankings from his camp performances.

 

The Davis twins and Gaylord have been consistently rated very high 3 stars/low 4 stars by all services the entire time and still remain that way.

 

Decker and Neal were both unrated initially and are now solid 3 stars. Decker has a decent chance at getting a 4th star eventually.

 

Dillman has dropped but that is due to a pretty severe injury and eligibility issues. It's not guaranteed, but there is a chance he might not even play football his senior year.

 

 

So again, please list these commits that are dropping. Not only do almost all of our current commits attend a bunch of camps (camps you said they don't attend), they have done nothing except improve their ranking (the opposite of what you said). And if you read the reports, it's because they are the best players there. Bussey did go from unrated to borderline 5th star because he attended a Rivals camp and they made a business decision, it's because by ALL accounts he was the best RB there and dominated all the current 5 stars.

[QMany]

Bussey has sky-rocketed up the rankings from his camp performances.

Bussey has dropped 25 spots in RB rankings, including sliding 3 spots in the last two weeks.

[Blackshirt96]

http://bigrednetwork.com/story/a_brief_history_of_husker_recruiting_1990-99

 

A little dated, but a good read about recruiting in the 90's. If you haven't read it, its worth the read.

[Junior]

So, it's worse or better based on the hypotheticals of the depth chart. That's silly.

 

 

 

Not really silly at all. Would you rather have 10 or 15 tries when trying to find an All-American or two?