Opposing coaches size up the Cornhuskers:

[LukeinNE]

 

Quite being a sour puss, haha. You have to admit the 2015 class has one heck of a foundation to build on, if it can be held together and we have a strong season, we could really finish with one of the best rated classes Nebraska has seen in quite a while. Granted it won't be a huge class, but the quality really seems to be there. And it's seems like the staff has gotten better at finding diamonds in the rough before other big schools and offering them right before they hit the camp circuit and blow up. I credit garrison, kaz and warren for building a better recruiting pattern.

 

Maybe it's being a sourpuss . . . maybe it's being burned every time this coaching staff gets my hopes up . . . I don't know. One way or another we need a change. (Not necessarily meaning a coaching change.)

 

 

Being a Husker skeptic in August is like being a drunk Santa swearing at crying kids in the mall on Christmas Eve, Carl. Now, cherry or fruit punch kool aid?

[carlfense]

Less turnovers? More punt return yards?

It'd be awfully nice but a lot of turnovers seems to be the hallmark of Pelini's teams.

 

I have no idea what they're trying to do with punt returns. No idea at all.

[carlfense]

Being a Husker skeptic in August is like being a drunk Santa swearing at crying kids in the mall on Christmas Eve, Carl. Now, cherry or fruit punch kool aid?

Fool me six times shame on me.

[Junior]

 

 

This offseason seemed to be a wakeup call for Bo.

 

I know the stuff on Twitter seems small or insignificant, but i think it shows that Bo is finally listening to others and trying to make changes.

Year 7 wakeup call?

 

Look at this recruiting class for 2015...

The 2015 class doesn't look much different than Bo's previous classes. What am I missing?

 

Some things take time... It is not ideal, but 9 wins a year isnt awful.. that wakeup call =11 wins.. ill take it.

 

Are you blind? This is the first time the class has been this big/this deep/ this fast.... top 20 class right now i believe...

 

 

 

#28 according to Rivals and #33 according to 24/7.

2014 NU finished #32

2013 #17

2012 #25

2011 #15

2010 #22

2009 #28

(All Rivals)

 

So... I don't know, but it doesn't seem like our recruiting is markedly better. It might turn out to be in the long run, but to say it is now is just hopefulness from fans.

[carlfense]

 

#28 according to Rivals and #33 according to 24/7.

2014 NU finished #32

2013 #17

2012 #25

2011 #15

2010 #22

2009 #28

(All Rivals)

 

So... I don't know, but it doesn't seem like our recruiting is markedly better. It might turn out to be in the long run, but to say it is now is just hopefulness from fans.

 

That's about what I expected but I don't follow recruiting as closely as I used to. I think that it's pretty easy to miss the forest for the trees with recruiting classes.

[3-N-OUT]

 

 

 

This offseason seemed to be a wakeup call for Bo.

 

I know the stuff on Twitter seems small or insignificant, but i think it shows that Bo is finally listening to others and trying to make changes.

Year 7 wakeup call?

 

Look at this recruiting class for 2015...

The 2015 class doesn't look much different than Bo's previous classes. What am I missing?

 

Some things take time... It is not ideal, but 9 wins a year isnt awful.. that wakeup call =11 wins.. ill take it.

 

Are you blind? This is the first time the class has been this big/this deep/ this fast.... top 20 class right now i believe...

 

 

 

#28 according to Rivals and #33 according to 24/7.

2014 NU finished #32

2013 #17

2012 #25

2011 #15

2010 #22

2009 #28

(All Rivals)

 

So... I don't know, but it doesn't seem like our recruiting is markedly better. It might turn out to be in the long run, but to say it is now is just hopefulness from fans.

 

yes but our average star ranking is higher than 16 teams ranked above us and only tied or lower than 1 team below us w/ at least 11 commits. So we don't have the volume, but we have a good class.

[Junior]

yes but our average star ranking is higher than 16 teams ranked above us and only tied or lower than 1 team below us w/ at least 11 commits. So we don't have the volume, but we have a good class.

 

 

 

 

The average star rating is always a bit of a red herring, in my book. If we have 4 guys who are 4* and 3 guys who are 3* (3.6 average star ranking), and Wisconsin has 5 guys who are 4* and 4 guys who are 3* and one 2*, their average star ranking is lower (3.4), but would you say they have a worse class overall??

 

Also, why did you qualify it "w/ at least 11 commits"?

[3-N-OUT]

 

yes but our average star ranking is higher than 16 teams ranked above us and only tied or lower than 1 team below us w/ at least 11 commits. So we don't have the volume, but we have a good class.

 

 

 

 

The average star rating is always a bit of a red herring, in my book. If we have 4 guys who are 4* and 3 guys who are 3* (3.6 average star ranking), and Wisconsin has 5 guys who are 4* and 4 guys who are 3* and one 2*, their average star ranking is lower (3.4), but would you say they have a worse class overall??

 

Also, why did you qualify it "w/ at least 11 commits"?

 

I do agree...but then how do you look at a class? Just because a team has more commits than we do doesn't mean they have a better class either, just more "points"...so I guess everyone can just make up there own opinion of what qualifies as a good class instead of looking at rankings? Since you referenced our class ranking to past years, I was just pulling data from the rankings profiles to show that it's always not just where we fall on the scale, but you also proved my point further with your comment above (which I agree with)...really depends on how you want to look at things I guess.

 

I qualified it w/ 11 commits, because if you only had one commit and he was a 5*, that doesn't really give you much data on how the class is in comparison to teams w/ at least a set number, in this case I picked 11 commits.

[Junior]

 

 

yes but our average star ranking is higher than 16 teams ranked above us and only tied or lower than 1 team below us w/ at least 11 commits. So we don't have the volume, but we have a good class.

 

 

 

 

The average star rating is always a bit of a red herring, in my book. If we have 4 guys who are 4* and 3 guys who are 3* (3.6 average star ranking), and Wisconsin has 5 guys who are 4* and 4 guys who are 3* and one 2*, their average star ranking is lower (3.4), but would you say they have a worse class overall??

 

Also, why did you qualify it "w/ at least 11 commits"?

 

I do agree...but then how do you look at a class? Just because a team has more commits than we do doesn't mean they have a better class either, just more "points"...so I guess everyone can just make up there own opinion of what qualifies as a good class instead of looking at rankings? Since you referenced our class ranking to past years, I was just pulling data from the rankings profiles to show that it's always not just where we fall on the scale, but you also proved my point further with your comment above (which I agree with)...really depends on how you want to look at things I guess.

 

I qualified it w/ 11 commits, because if you only had one commit and he was a 5*, that doesn't really give you much data on how the class is in comparison to teams w/ at least a set number, in this case I picked 11 commits.

 

 

I think you have to use a combination of both if you are concerned about any given year. But if you look from year to year, you might have one year that you are particularly low because of a small class or higher because of a large one, but in the end when the classes are annually at around the #25 range that's just what you are as a recruiter. Unless Pelini makes a sudden jump to the top 10, I would say there is pretty much no change. That's not to say Pelini is doing a bad job of recruiting, or that the team cannot be successful as it has been built... I'm just saying that anyone trying to claim some great increase in recruiting prowess at this point is engaging in a little bit of wishful thinking.

[carlfense]

I qualified it w/ 11 commits, because if you only had one commit and he was a 5*, that doesn't really give you much data on how the class is in comparison to teams w/ at least a set number, in this case I picked 11 commits.

But you're eliminating 3 teams with 8-10 commits . . . and not a single school with on 5*.

 

The argument isn't particularly convincing if you're cherry picking that much.

[carlfense]

That's not to say Pelini is doing a bad job of recruiting, or that the team cannot be successful as it has been built... I'm just saying that anyone trying to claim some great increase in recruiting prowess at this point is engaging in a little bit of wishful thinking.

Right.

[kchusker_chris]

yes but our average star ranking is higher than 16 teams ranked above us and only tied or lower than 1 team below us w/ at least 11 commits. So we don't have the volume, but we have a good class.

 

 

The average star crap gets used every year we have smaller classes, and brushed aside when we have larger classes. Didn't hear about it at all last year did you? Go back through the 2012 threads and that's all anyone talks about. We can excuse the classes Pelini puts together any way we want, but there's so many hypocritical things that goes with the "average star" thing it's ridiculous. Recruiting is a numbers game. If someone doesn't agree w/ that, then they'd better never mention the concept of over signing on this board. More numbers, more potential for starters, better class. A smaller class is not a good thing for Nebraska, no matter how you slice it. We aren't signing all 5* and 4* guys. We need numbers. So unless our average stars are pushing 4.5, this is going to be a lower ranked class no matter how we try and fluff it up.

[3-N-OUT]

 

I qualified it w/ 11 commits, because if you only had one commit and he was a 5*, that doesn't really give you much data on how the class is in comparison to teams w/ at least a set number, in this case I picked 11 commits.

But you're eliminating 3 teams with 8-10 commits . . . and not a single school with on 5*.

 

The argument isn't particularly convincing if you're cherry picking that much.

 

I'm not trying to make and argument...??? And I wasn't cherry picking...add the 3 teams w/ 8-10 commits if you want, doesn't really matter to me...I was just using 11 because that is the number that NU has at this time. Anyone can take the info and break it apart any way you want too. You could make is sway in a lot of different directions based on how you want to look at it, I was just giving one perspective. He asked how I qualified it and I told him...wasn't much more to it than that. Personally I like the last couple classes for a multitude of reasons...this one included, but don't worry, I won't try to "convince" you of it, because I would hate to be called a cherry picker or the likes and it's probably going to keep me up at nights worrying about if I "convinced" you or not...smh