G0B1GRED Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Seeing how we typically don't bring in the extremely flashy, highly reviewed type (based on star ratings and such), is it safe to say that the star system of recruiting is irrelevant to what kind of team we actually have, and will have in the future? I used to get so caught up in the competition side of it, constantly being disappointed by what average star rating of recruits we were bringing in. Not so much anymore. Does it make a huge impact for Nebraska and our success during the season? Quote Link to comment
Bowfin Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Pretty good at some positions, not as well at others. Good would be secondary, defensive line. Not so much with quarterback and offensive line. Ron Brown does excellent with the running backs. In general, I say coaching trumps recruiting. Exhibit A: Kansas State at 5-1 Exhibit B: Texas at 3-4 3 Quote Link to comment
NUinID Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 A lot of player development is not just about what the coach does, it has a lot to do with the player themselves. It also takes some players time for the light bulb to go on. Injuries also play a part in player development. Offensive line development is doing just fine IMO. The big problem is that all of NU's offensive line coaches from now till eternity will be judged against Uncle Milt who is probably top 5 all time as far as offensive line coaches go. 1 Quote Link to comment
Hedley Lamarr Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Where have we finished in the polls at year end compared to our cumulative class average? Fairly similar I would suspect Quote Link to comment
True2tRA Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 . Positive side. We must be somewhat capable. We've developed Kondolo and Price, they look damn good. They should be playing more. I'm not down on too much about this team right now. Quote Link to comment
lo country Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 IIRC, Bob Stoops said that he doesn't recruit player who can't go from day 1. That philosophy has worked pretty well. Doesn't appear that he plans to get guys ready (develop) he gets ones who can play and improves upon that with coaching and his system. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I once saw a study, and I can't find it right now or I would post it (not sure where I read it), that looked into the accuracy of rivals rankings. Basically, the conclusion was that for each individual recuit, it is a total crap shoot. the rankings are not that great. However, when you get a recruiting class ranking for a team, they are extrememly accurate. During the last 10 years or so, the LOWEST (WORST) ranked senior class that won the national title game was Auburn during Cam Newton's year. Their senior class was ranked 3rd when they brought them to campus. Anecdotally, when you look at the recruiting class rankings, they tend to resemble the polls pretty closely. In my opinion, developing players is largely overrated. Simply, you need to get the best players on campus and they will win you games. Yeah, not so much. They had really good classes but nowhere near what you stated. Just to make sure the bases are covered, here are Rivals' ranking for what would be the "true" seniors (first number) and fifth-year seniors (second number). Rivals' web site only goes back to 2002 so those are the numbers I included. 2013 - Florida State - #10, #7 2012 - Alabama - #1, #1 2011 - Alabama - #1, #10 2010 - Auburn - #7, #10 2009 - Alabama - #11, #18 2008 - Florida - #15, #10 2007 - LSU - #2, #1 2006 - Florida - #2, #20 2005 - Texas - #1 Also, I'm not so sure recruiting isn't the egg instead of the chicken. That is, I'm not so sure (generally speaking) that you don't get better recruiting classes once you've started having success on the field as opposed to the other way around. Several of the same schools are high in the ranking for a long stretch so it's sometimes hard to tell and you'd have to look at a lot more numbers to be able to tell anything but since Alabama shows up in this list three times, it's an interesting data point. Their first NC on this list had the worst recruiting classes. There second one was better and their third was the best. Correspondingly, they were relatively poor on the field in the early 2000s and started winning when Saban got there and subsequently their recruiting classes got better. 1 Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Not really. Here's a compilation of the Rivals and Scout rankings from 2010-2013 and how those teams finished ranked in the 2013 AP poll. Of the 12 teams that finished ranked in the top 12 in both recruiting rankings, five of them weren't ranked in the Top 25. So, over that period, having a combined Top 12 recruiting class was basically a coin flip as to whether you finished in the Top 25 or not. That's not a very good correlation. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 You guys comparing recruiting rankings to actual performance rankings, are they pushed back a couple years? Like how the 2011 class performed in 2013 and 2014 as juniors and seniors? Quote Link to comment
Hedley Lamarr Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 You guys comparing recruiting rankings to actual performance rankings, are they pushed back a couple years? Like how the 2011 class performed in 2013 and 2014 as juniors and seniors? Exactly, you can't compare a Sr class to the season ranking. Take the average ranking of all classes on the team and see what you get. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 You guys comparing recruiting rankings to actual performance rankings, are they pushed back a couple years? Like how the 2011 class performed in 2013 and 2014 as juniors and seniors? Exactly, you can't compare a Sr class to the season ranking. Take the average ranking of all classes on the team and see what you get. I agree. Cuz there are some freshman the come in and have an immediate impact here and there as well. Now, with that said, using the straight up recruiting rankings may be a little tricky for Nebraska. The 2012 class was a small class. only 18 I think, which caused it to be ranked in the 20s I think. Sean Callahan and I think it was that Washut fella both said that that was a top ten caliber class in the talent part had it been up around 25 signees. And I think the same is being thought of for the 2015 class as it's shaping up. But it will also be a tad smaller. So using this method to figure the actual talent on the team, I think the actual rankings need to be adjusted to just a straight up average player ranking/star rating. Quote Link to comment
QMany Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Watch TE #84 in the Northwestern game. We still struggle. Positive side. We must be somewhat capable. We've developed Kondolo and Price, they look damn good. They should be playing more. I'm not down on too much about this team right now but after this Northwestern game I am a bit discouraged by some things. The fact that Sterup starts over Price bugs me. It just blows my mind. Also, TE #84 should not be allowed on the football field. At what point do we start holding players accountable for lack of effort and/or lack of performance? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acewjn0q9nU#t=163 Quote Link to comment
Cougar74 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Imo I think the Huskers staff does a good job at developing players. Recruiting rankings only measure what is easy and that is skilI . I think recruiting rankings for the most part ignore intagibles because these are harder to gauge. But a coach has a better chance through time to discover these things. IMO rankings ingnore players ball IQ, previous instruction, instinct, system fit, character, work ethic, competive drive, attitude, position flexibility, and academics success. Bo is a college coach. He is hard on academics and player development on the field. Bo Pelini is growing as a teacher IMO. He is and will be a great coach. A hallmark or benchmark I use " is the team better at the end of the season than it was at the beginning" IMO yes there is historical evidence if that. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 You guys comparing recruiting rankings to actual performance rankings, are they pushed back a couple years? Like how the 2011 class performed in 2013 and 2014 as juniors and seniors? My first post was for classes 4-5 years back to catch the seniors. The article I linked to combined the previous four classes to come up with an overall ranking for those four years and compared it to that year's AP ranking. That was only one year. Still trying to find some more long-term numbers. Quote Link to comment
HUSKER FREAK Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Well it took what? 3-4 years to get Bo's own players in and the way I see it; with not being able to bring 10 four stars and 5 five stars every year and having to develop the players we have I can see true success taking as long as year 7-8 because of having to develop the talent for the starters and also for the reserves to be able to fill in which I think we are finally seeing now. We have had some really good teams with a bunch of reserves who weren't ready for the playing time yet. IMO 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.