Ok so... what do Starkville and Oxford have that Lincoln doesn't?

[HuskerNBigD]

 

Mississippi has:

 

warm winters

Mississippi Belles- warm women

Gulf coast beaches

party times

high cotton

close access to southern football- recruits taught by full time HQ coaches

two great college coaches

and most likely undiscovered NCAA infractions

While the winters may be a bit warmer. The playing months are comparable to Nebraska

Mississippi is about 8% more obese than Nebraska so I suppose their women can keep you warmer at night.

Starkville and Oxford are quite literally in the middle of the state. Not a lot of gulf coast beach area there.

Every college parties.

High corn?

Definitely a closer recruiting footprint.

Jury is still out on "great" HC

Only a matter of time

 

 

Hate to say it, but a 10 at Nebraska would probably be a 5-6 at Ole Miss. I'd also take The Grove over the Res or Bottoms any day.

[Landlord]

 

Hate to say it, but a 10 at Nebraska would probably be a 5-6 at Ole Miss. I'd also take The Grove over the Res or Bottoms any day.

 

 

 

Nah man. That's not how it works.

 

A 10 at Nebraska is a 10 at Ole Miss. It's just that while Nebraska might have 40% 5's and 6's, Ole Miss' 40% would be 7's and 8's.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

Hate to say it, but a 10 at Nebraska would probably be a 5-6 at Ole Miss. I'd also take The Grove over the Res or Bottoms any day.

 

 

 

Nah man. That's not how it works.

 

A 10 at Nebraska is a 10 at Ole Miss. It's just that while Nebraska might have 40% 5's and 6's, Ole Miss' 40% would be 7's and 8's.

 

I would concur with Landlord on this.

[kchusker_chris]

 

 

Hate to say it, but a 10 at Nebraska would probably be a 5-6 at Ole Miss. I'd also take The Grove over the Res or Bottoms any day.

 

 

 

Nah man. That's not how it works.

 

A 10 at Nebraska is a 10 at Ole Miss. It's just that while Nebraska might have 40% 5's and 6's, Ole Miss' 40% would be 7's and 8's.

 

 

....a 10 at Nebrsaka is a 10 at Ole Miss - because we've lowered our standards. #4lossesayearwilldothattoya

[Stumpy1]

 

Just asking...Do they not sign to 85 to allow some to be left over to award to players that walked on and work their way into scholarship roles? Because I can definitely see some players recruited on scholarship that don't pan out and never evolve so I'm not real sure that filling up on scholarships is a huge deal considering it doesn't guarantee those players will pan out. Now if we 130 to play with? Take more chances and have higher percentage that pan out along with some that don't but with many more scholarships to award it wouldn't hurt as much? Not discounting your post, just discussing.

They don't sign to 85 because of piss-poor roster management and poor evaluation in the past. They sign to 82-83. Should hit 85 every February, no exceptions. It's not to save for walk-ons - we've awarded almost every senior walk-on the last few years...some of them weren't even remotely deserving in the sense that most think of when we hear about walk-ons "earning" scholarships. If they are there, they definitely should be handed out, but the fact so many are there is the real issue. It seems to be corrected.

 

You look at some of Pelini's top classes, and see the 4* guys that all bolted. Peat, Moore, Rome, Starling, Klatchko, Green, Green...the list goes on. The recruits that we've hung our hats on in the past, most never even contributed to the program. So those first 3-4 classes were actually far worse than they look.

 

We talk about continuation in coaching as this answer to Nebraska's problems - try looking at the retention of our talent. We aren't going to keep all, but when you turn over 30% or so (i'm not going to go back and research the exact number) for a few years, you're going to see 2013 crop up. This seems to be something that's turned a corner. You look at the team this year, and you see a difference. You see a 2012 class that is almost entirely in tact. You see a young 2013 class that is contributing big time, and that's a big class that is very much still in tact. Suttles, Brown, a few of those - that happens. But if we keep 85-90% of our class on the roster for a few years, we'll see a difference. And I think they are. So while the classes aren't top shelf talent, at least they are retaining the talent we have. That's a huge step in the right direction. Now we just need to get more of it (sign to 85) and grab a couple more 4* guys. It's not far off.

 

But the bottom line is, the NCAA isn't keeping us from the talent. The location isn't going to keep us from top 15 classes. The recruiting has been lacking, primarily because of our own doing. It's being addressed, and we're starting to see the results of that. Next time someone calls' for El's head, they should look to our roster first - and notice the positive impact.

 

I posted a list awhile ago of the other B1G teams that do the exact same thing that we do. The only one that plays and starts the season with a full 85 is Michigan State. Do I agree that we should keep doing what we are doing, no.

[NUance]

 

 

what do Starkville and Oxford have that Lincoln doesn't

Better weed. LINK

[JJ Husker]

There sure is a lot of talk about why we can or can't recruit as well as some SEC area teams but, I haven't seen the most obvious reason talked about much. Win and they will come.....more specifically, get relevant and they will come. Don't want to get into the argument about how we are "winning" 9 to 10 per year and how great some think that is. How about we hangout in the top ten.....forever, like we used to? Show some recruits that they'll be going somewhere if they come to Lincoln and recruiting becomes much easier. Just win baby.....and stop losing 4 and stop getting embarrassed on the national stage. Everything else is moot BS.

[TheSker]

There sure is a lot of talk about why we can or can't recruit as well as some SEC area teams but, I haven't seen the most obvious reason talked about much. Win and they will come.....more specifically, get relevant and they will come. Don't want to get into the argument about how we are "winning" 9 to 10 per year and how great some think that is. How about we hangout in the top ten.....forever, like we used to? Show some recruits that they'll be going somewhere if they come to Lincoln and recruiting becomes much easier. Just win baby.....and stop losing 4 and stop getting embarrassed on the national stage. Everything else is moot BS.

Are we not actually "winning" those games? It's great to bring up the 9 and 10 win "debate", then say you don't want to "debate" it.......then say "just win baby"......but apparently since we haven't been able to do that in the last 15 years and 3 head coaches (plus Tom Osborne as athletic director for nearly half that) it must not be quite as easy to do as it might seem.

[NUpolo8]

 

There sure is a lot of talk about why we can or can't recruit as well as some SEC area teams but, I haven't seen the most obvious reason talked about much. Win and they will come.....more specifically, get relevant and they will come. Don't want to get into the argument about how we are "winning" 9 to 10 per year and how great some think that is. How about we hangout in the top ten.....forever, like we used to? Show some recruits that they'll be going somewhere if they come to Lincoln and recruiting becomes much easier. Just win baby.....and stop losing 4 and stop getting embarrassed on the national stage. Everything else is moot BS.

 

Are we not actually "winning" those games? It's great to bring up the 9 and 10 win "debate", then say you don't want to "debate" it.......then say "just win baby"......but apparently since we haven't been able to do that in the last 15 years and 3 head coaches (plus Tom Osborne as athletic director for nearly half that) it must not be quite as easy to do as it might seem.

No, they are not winning the games that matter.

[TheSker]

 

 

There sure is a lot of talk about why we can or can't recruit as well as some SEC area teams but, I haven't seen the most obvious reason talked about much. Win and they will come.....more specifically, get relevant and they will come. Don't want to get into the argument about how we are "winning" 9 to 10 per year and how great some think that is. How about we hangout in the top ten.....forever, like we used to? Show some recruits that they'll be going somewhere if they come to Lincoln and recruiting becomes much easier. Just win baby.....and stop losing 4 and stop getting embarrassed on the national stage. Everything else is moot BS.

Are we not actually "winning" those games? It's great to bring up the 9 and 10 win "debate", then say you don't want to "debate" it.......then say "just win baby"......but apparently since we haven't been able to do that in the last 15 years and 3 head coaches (plus Tom Osborne as athletic director for nearly half that) it must not be quite as easy to do as it might seem.

No, they are not winning the games that matter.

 

Agreed. But that wasn't what was put in quotes. And the bigger point is based on the past 15 years, it must not be that easy.

[lo country]

There sure is a lot of talk about why we can or can't recruit as well as some SEC area teams but, I haven't seen the most obvious reason talked about much. Win and they will come.....more specifically, get relevant and they will come. Don't want to get into the argument about how we are "winning" 9 to 10 per year and how great some think that is. How about we hangout in the top ten.....forever, like we used to? Show some recruits that they'll be going somewhere if they come to Lincoln and recruiting becomes much easier. Just win baby.....and stop losing 4 and stop getting embarrassed on the national stage. Everything else is moot BS.

All other arguments are futile. Winning cures all ills. We start winning a game or 2 on the national stage, quit getting embarrassed (so far so good) and get ranked in the top 10-15 every year (at the end of the season) recruits will take notice. Kids aren't stupid. They look at our 9 wins and see through the cupcakes and lesser team wins and then the losses against equal or "better" teams. Allow some 2nd team kids to rotate (lack at MSU glaring on OL) and kids will come. They realize that they can get in some games if they pay their dues on the practice field.

 

I'll say it again, get an identity. A TE, for example, would be stupid to come here IMO. We have done nothing to show them they will ever see meaningful time. But with Beck's system (whatever it is) TE's my become all the rage the remaining games. I hate to say it, but the lack of another RB seeing the field against MSU was boggling as well. IMO, both Cross and Newby have proven they deserve some touches. 2 RB sets would have forced MSU to key on another person besides AA. It would have left another blocker and given TA more flexibility IMO. Kids see this as well.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

 

There sure is a lot of talk about why we can or can't recruit as well as some SEC area teams but, I haven't seen the most obvious reason talked about much. Win and they will come.....more specifically, get relevant and they will come. Don't want to get into the argument about how we are "winning" 9 to 10 per year and how great some think that is. How about we hangout in the top ten.....forever, like we used to? Show some recruits that they'll be going somewhere if they come to Lincoln and recruiting becomes much easier. Just win baby.....and stop losing 4 and stop getting embarrassed on the national stage. Everything else is moot BS.

 

Are we not actually "winning" those games? It's great to bring up the 9 and 10 win "debate", then say you don't want to "debate" it.......then say "just win baby"......but apparently since we haven't been able to do that in the last 15 years and 3 head coaches (plus Tom Osborne as athletic director for nearly half that) it must not be quite as easy to do as it might seem.

No, they are not winning the games that matter.

Agreed. But that wasn't what was put in quotes. And the bigger point is based on the past 15 years, it must not be that easy.

No one ever said it was. But it's never been about whether it was easy or not.

[Landlord]

Kids aren't stupid. They look at our 9 wins and see through the cupcakes and lesser team wins and then the losses against equal or "better" teams.

 

 

I actually disagree with this 100% to be honest.

[lo country]

 

Kids aren't stupid. They look at our 9 wins and see through the cupcakes and lesser team wins and then the losses against equal or "better" teams.

 

 

I actually disagree with this 100% to be honest.

 

Fair enough. I have no basis for this other than my own opinion........

[sd'sker]

 

 

Kids aren't stupid. They look at our 9 wins and see through the cupcakes and lesser team wins and then the losses against equal or "better" teams.

 

 

I actually disagree with this 100% to be honest.

 

Fair enough. I have no basis for this other than my own opinion........

 

if it makes you feel better, i actually agreed with your post 100% to be honest.