Relative Talent on Husker's Schedule (graphs, graphs, and more graphs)

[NUance]

The OP provides an interesting way to get an approximation of talent on the roster. +1. But it doesn't account for players who leave early or are injured, does it? Like Tyler Moore, for example. Then again, I guess most teams have their fair share of players who leave or are injured.

[cornographic]

My quick takes:

 

Miami is in a downturn in talent (by Miami standards) but is still far more talented than Nebraska. Al Golden should have this team competing at a higher level not sure if he will, though.

 

Michigan State is on a gradual upswing in roster talent, but is currently right on-par with Nebraska. The difference is coaching stability, defense, and excelent QB play.

 

Wisconsin is Wisconsin. Their talent is lower, but they consistently over-perform. System stability?

 

BYU? Holy crap. There must be some kind of Mormon black magic that is preventing Bronco from leaving. Simply amazing what they have consistently done with less talent.

Wisconsin always gets those massive 320+ guys on their line, and they coach them up very well. It's a problem when your guys are in the 290-300 range.

[C N Red]

The BYU thing is a hard one. B/c you take recruiting talent which they may get 2-3 stars, but after they go on a mission and become grown ass men it makes a big difference physically and on maturity(although this one doesn't seem to add up with how dirty they are). But 18-22 year olds going against 20-25 year olds makes a huge difference especially when you are talking across the board on a team.

[Kiyoat Husker]

The OP provides an interesting way to get an approximation of talent on the roster. +1. But it doesn't account for players who leave early or are injured, does it? Like Tyler Moore, for example. Then again, I guess most teams have their fair share of players who leave or are injured.

No, there are a lot of things that are not taken into account. Nothing with individual players, although that could be an interesting way to cross-reference star ratings and class rankings. You could also add # of NFL drafted players that came from which classes, although that would require a level of detail that I am not prepared to give at this point. Maybe in the off-season.

 

Just a "shotgun" approach to talent eval.

[junior4949]

Considering most players redshirt making the age gap 18-23, I don't think the missions at BYU making their players in the 20-25 age group really give much if any boost. Bronco is one heck of a coach. BYU for the most part over the past four decades has had pretty darn good coaching with LaVell Edwards and Bronco. I'd say coaching gives BYU a much bigger boost than having players a couple years older than most other programs does.

[Red Five]

 

 

I looked at recruiting rankings from Scout, Rivals, and 247Sports, and averaged the rankings for each year. Then I created a 4-year recruiting average to establish current Talent on the roster.

 

 

Thanks for the work.

 

You can just use the 247 Composite Rankings as the take into account Rivals, Scout, 247, and ESPN. That would take out an extra few steps of work.

 

And chances are the 247 Rank you grabbed is probably already the composite as I think that is what they use to rank teams. Weighting the 247 Composite with the Scout and Rivals would add extra weight to them. Probably doesn't change things to much, but just FYI.

 

I always thought 247 uses their own rankings and no the composite for the team rankings.

 

The web link says Composite Team Rankings. And it the big heading says:

 

247 Sports Team Ranking

The Chase for the Recruiting Champion powered by 247Sports Composite

 

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

[4skers89]

Very cool, thanks for putting this together. I like the format of the graphs which allows you to look at trends over the years. I don't recall seeing something like this before. With the exception of Miami, we have out recruited our opponents in recent years.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I looked at recruiting rankings from Scout, Rivals, and 247Sports, and averaged the rankings for each year. Then I created a 4-year recruiting average to establish current Talent on the roster.

 

 

Thanks for the work.

 

You can just use the 247 Composite Rankings as the take into account Rivals, Scout, 247, and ESPN. That would take out an extra few steps of work.

 

And chances are the 247 Rank you grabbed is probably already the composite as I think that is what they use to rank teams. Weighting the 247 Composite with the Scout and Rivals would add extra weight to them. Probably doesn't change things to much, but just FYI.

 

I always thought 247 uses their own rankings and no the composite for the team rankings.

 

The web link says Composite Team Rankings. And it the big heading says:

 

247 Sports Team Ranking

The Chase for the Recruiting Champion powered by 247Sports Composite

 

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

 

Hmmm...interesting.

 

Learn something new every day. Glad I could accomplish that on a Friday afternoon.

 

I could have sworn I read somewhere that indicated it was their own player rankings and I was disappointed in that it wasn't the composite.

 

Oh well.

[Kernal]

From a purely recruiting-star ranking, when has Nebraska beat teams with better average recruiting rankings versus when have we lost to teams with worse average rankings?

 

Beat better recruiting-ranked teams:

• 2014 Miami
• 2014 Georgia
• 2013 Michigan?
• 2012 Michigan?

Lost to worse recruiting-ranked teams:

• 2015 BYU
• 2014 Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State,
• 2013 Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan State
• 2012 Wisconsin, UCLA?
• 2011 Northwestern, Wisconsin, UCLA?

Does that look right? I'm not sure where Michigan's or UCLA's average rankings were back when we played them.

[Mavric]

UCLA is usually has a Top 20 recruiting class with a couple Top 10s here and there. The only year we were ahead of them was 2011 which I assume coincided with a coaching change on their part. Michigan is usually Top 20 and is a frequent visitor to the Top 10.

 

Michigan State would be basically a toss-up with us over the last several years. A couple years we were ahead, a couple years they were.

 

Not to nit-pick but if you're grouping by seasons, Georgia would be 2013.

 

2011 Ohio State would be another.

[Kiyoat Husker]

From a purely recruiting-star ranking, when has Nebraska beat teams with better average recruiting rankings versus when have we lost to teams with worse average rankings?

 

Beat better recruiting-ranked teams:

• 2014 Miami
• 2014 Georgia
• 2013 Michigan?
• 2012 Michigan?

Lost to worse recruiting-ranked teams:

• 2015 BYU
• 2014 Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State,
• 2013 Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan State
• 2012 Wisconsin, UCLA?
• 2011 Northwestern, Wisconsin, UCLA?

Does that look right? I'm not sure where Michigan's or UCLA's average rankings were back when we played them.

 

Looks right to me. I think it is an interesting point. I think if you go back a little farther Pelini did beat a few more talented teams, but towards the end, not good.

 

I'll look into UCLA.

 

Pretty sure Michigan has always been high in rankings

 

Edit: Mavric beat me to it. Figures, since he is "higher ranked" than me.

[Kernal]

UCLA is usually has a Top 20 recruiting class with a couple Top 10s here and there. The only year we were ahead of them was 2011 which I assume coincided with a coaching change on their part. Michigan is usually Top 20 and is a frequent visitor to the Top 10.

 

Michigan State would be basically a toss-up with us over the last several years. A couple years we were ahead, a couple years they were.

 

Not to nit-pick but if you're grouping by seasons, Georgia would be 2013.

 

2011 Ohio State would be another.

 

Ah yeah, 2011 Ohio State surely had better classes than us.

 

After I posted that I got to wondering about Penn State too. I know they have better classes now, but I'm not sure about the years leading up to the scandal exposure in 2011.

 

One thing about both those teams that make's this comparison less useful for them is that OSU had an interim staff in 2011, and Penn State had a wealth of problems following 2011 with coaching and scholarship losses.

[StPaulHusker]

My take on BYU is that their system allows them to not play kids for 2-3 years while maintaining their eligibility. Yes, a lot of them are on missions for a couple of those years. But they gain maturity. And that can go a long ways. I mean, their true freshman QB is 21. Not just 18-19. That had to make a difference.

 

You couple that with still learning the plays in the book and being overall in the system, and you develop solid players.

 

Are they championship caliber? Probably not. But they are highly competitive. And Bronco is typically not having to deal with "high maintenance" freshman that feel they deserve playing time.

[Kiyoat Husker]

just from rivals:

 

Penn State

2006 #6 class

2007 #24

2008 #43

2009 #24

2010 #12

2011 #35

 

so in the 2011 season Penn State would have a 4-year average of 28.5 (similar to Nebraska) or a 5-year average of 27.6.

 

I remember several years of people camplaining about Paterno not retiring, and the recruiting getting worse. Worse than what? I think before that timeframe the talent was more like top 15. Solich beat Penn State in 2003, if I remember right.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

 

 

 

I looked at recruiting rankings from Scout, Rivals, and 247Sports, and averaged the rankings for each year. Then I created a 4-year recruiting average to establish current Talent on the roster.

 

 

Thanks for the work.

 

You can just use the 247 Composite Rankings as the take into account Rivals, Scout, 247, and ESPN. That would take out an extra few steps of work.

 

And chances are the 247 Rank you grabbed is probably already the composite as I think that is what they use to rank teams. Weighting the 247 Composite with the Scout and Rivals would add extra weight to them. Probably doesn't change things to much, but just FYI.

 

I always thought 247 uses their own rankings and no the composite for the team rankings.

 

The web link says Composite Team Rankings. And it the big heading says:

 

247 Sports Team Ranking

The Chase for the Recruiting Champion powered by 247Sports Composite

 

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

 

Hmmm...interesting.

 

Learn something new every day. Glad I could accomplish that on a Friday afternoon.

 

I could have sworn I read somewhere that indicated it was their own player rankings and I was disappointed in that it wasn't the composite.

 

Oh well.

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/TeamRankings

Here's where I was taking the 247 rankings from. Not a composite.

 

Says "Team Ranking using data only from 247Sports Player Ratings "