2011-2015 recruiting and where they are. Might be some of this 2-4

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

 

 

 

 

But what's the average rate? Sure 38% seems like a lot but what the national average for a recruit staying for 4 or 5 years. I'm not trying to be a troll or start a fight and 38% seems like a lot but with out knowing what other teams deal with it is hard to say how much affect it really has.

General consensus is that, on average, any given recruit has about a 50/50 chance of panning out.

 

This is a nearly identical argument to the "too many walkons on the travel roster" argument from a few weeks ago that was thoroughly debunked once we started looking at the travel rosters of other schools.

 

 

Then, by all means, please post some stats that back up your claim. Obviously "general consensus"--whatever that means--would say that any given recruit has a 50/50 chance of panning out...that's just probability, he either works or he doesn't.

 

Now, if you can tell me the attrition rate at other programs and find that Nebraska's close to average, then you can say that this is debunked.

 

You want me to do your work for you? Here's one link to get you started. It just deals with SEC QBs from '05-'14. Pro-style QBs had a 37.5% success rate, while dual threats came in at 18.8%.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/last-decades-elite-qb-recruits-panned/

 

Here's one for OU showing 40% attrition. (BTW, attrition means leaves school. The 50% figure I quoted above is a rule of thumb with the recruiting services and includes players who stay 4 years but never become starters.)

https://thefootballbrainiacs.com/ou-oklahoma-sooners-football-recruiting-transfer-attrition-problem

 

Now, if you want to do your own research, go to scout.com or rivals.com and look up recruiting classes for particular schools from a few years ago and then check how many of those guys are still on the current roster. If you do it, it will be a good learning experience, but I don't expect you to post the results as they will be counter to your agenda.

 

 

You were the one purporting a claim, all I was asking was for you to back it up. Much like trials, you have to prove your claim beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not good enough to say: "general consensus is 50/50" and then ask me to provide evidence for that.

 

No you (or at least the OP) were the ones making a claim that the Huskers have a bare cupboard due to some arbitrary line of attrition being crossed. People are posting half the statistical story and expecting people to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

 

It's the exact same thing that happened with the "Travel Roster Walkons" issue from a few weeks ago.

 

 

Okay, so instead of coming into the thread and flat out saying "average consensus for a recruit to pan out is about 50/50," come into the thread posting the links you did after I responded to your original post. There was nothing in there that I disagree with, and, in all honesty, this (the attrition rate) isn't something unique to our program. Might it have a detrimental impact on our team's performance? Of course: if every player on our starting 22 was a redshirt senior with 4 year's experience every year, we'd be a lot better off than we are now. Are the problems we face significantly different than most schools? If the average attrition rate for Power 5 conferences is 38%, then we're doing average in that regard--some schools have lower attrition rate and more depth, others have a higher attrition rate and less depth.

 

From this you have two questions that can be fairly asked and evaluated:

 

1) What are the records of the teams that are above and below us on the attrition rate? Are all the teams who have a higher attrition rate posting similar records? Are all teams who have a lower attrition rate posting better records (yeah, yeah, that wouldn't be difficult, har har)

 

2) What are the recruiting ratings of the players who left the program? You can say you have 38% attrition rate and say that that is an average attrition rate, but until you know which players attritted, you don't know if that 38% is functional or dysfunctional. Several 4* players leaving the program is going to hurt more than several 2* players leaving. So, what is the caliber of players that have left the program, and is Nebraska unique with regards to the quality of players leaving the program?

 

I'm not going to disagree with a post that is states a claim and backs it up with solid evidence. Yeah, perhaps Mike Riley is swimming in it so far this year, but I'll have hope (however irrational that proves to be) that he can get things done. Hope isn't exactly the best strategy, but it's the one I'm choosing.

[Bowfin]

So to summarize:

 

If Pelini would have left Nebraska with an overwhelming level of talent at all positions compared to our opponents, coaching wouldn't matter.

 

Got it.

[StPaulHusker]

So to summarize:

 

If Pelini would have left Nebraska with an overwhelming level of talent at all positions compared to our opponents, coaching wouldn't matter.

 

Got it.

Since he didn't, we will never know will we?

[Nebhawk]

I don't think this is a Pelini problem, a Riley problem or a Callahan problem. Its all a combination of all those years now rearing its ugly face. Its a lack of any kind of serious presence as a factor in college football. No one win in the last 13 years to hang your hat as a program. None. Last great win was in 01' when Stuntz threw that ball to Crouch to beat OU! That was the last key victory for this program. The last one. That was the last meaningful win this program has had, and it was over the one rival that made it count or even more.

 

Name one game we won since then, that would compare? Name a game since then that we have had the hype surrounding this program? It wasn't any of those Big 12 champ games either. Those games almost to a man, most thought we woudn't win, and in fact it was more of a matter of if we could stay in the games.

 

You can point fingers all you want, but ultimately its so much bigger than one staff or two staffs or three staffs. Its a culture of losing and a culture of so-so football that has now caught up to this current staff. But I will wait for Riley to somewhat right the ship. That starts with recruiting skill players for skilled positions. Something that hasn't been done here for years.

 

Yes, maybe Solich placed a curse on this program.....best thing I have read on here for a month, by the way.

 

Point is: Pointing fingers can point at any moment in the last 12 years of coaching changes to realize that this issue is more than one staff's or this current staff. This is several years of not producing a meaningful game victory, a win over Top 25 team, a win or mediocre Big 10 West opponent. We haven't been relevent for 12 freakin years. 12! NO BCS bowl games even played in. KU, KSU, UTAH, TCU have all played in BCS bowl games...Iowa did about 10 years ago! Hell, most of those teams even one a BCS bowl game! Blame this current staff for some clock managment issues, but blame the players for not executing. Coaches can only call plays, they can't go on the field and make things happen.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Data with low or no correlation reveals nothing conclusive.

 

Running off players intentionally and replacing them with recruits helps a team's overall talent yet also reduces it's scholly player retention metric.

 

A stat that would be useful would be how many 5* and how many 4* players of soph and above status are on the active/available roster NOW. That's a stat I guarantee correlates highly with power rank (and wins but less so due to schedules). And it really directly addresses the question which is "how good are our starting players, comparatively?"

This is an excellent point, and something that requires a lot less legwork. Whether the reason is recruiting skill, retention skill, roster management, talent identification, or whatever. Just comparing starters team-by team tells us the most accurate story.

 

Wisconsin's starting D ave star rating was identical to our O. 3.0

 

Rivals has those match ups somewhere on the site.

[Highway6]

Every team in college football deals with attrition as well as injuries. The bottom line is that Nebraska has enough talent currently to beat every team that we've played. It's the decision making and personnel decisions that and the overall 'coaching' of this team that has been this teams true downfall. Enough with the excuses....

This. Close thread.

[Bowfin]

Since he didn't, we will never know will we?

I say give Riley his seven years, guaranteed. Can we agree on that?

[Nebhawk]

Again, coaches coach, and players, play. Not all of this is just coaching and just playing. Its a combo. Singling out one point and not being open to the others is why Nebraska has fired two winning coaches and hired a sub .500 type to replace.

 

If your willing to point out the coaching issues, be willing to recognize that players haven't ran play calls right , and defensive players haven't played where they were told to be.

 

Yes, it all comes back to coaching, and that is true. BUt when your losing games by 11 points total, its also execution. Players aren't believing in what there being told. Not executing is a program issue overall.

[gdubs4nu]

Guys, I posted those original numbers, but I have been crunching numbers to figure out exactly what we should be analyzing about Bo's staff to figure out the whole picture and be able to see if Mike Riley's approach is better as we see it over time.

 

I'm brand new to the board, but like most of you, am a Husker fan to sometimes ridiculous lengths.

 

As most people said about the attrition levels, I couldn't find the site where those numbers came from or any exact number, but most of what I have looked at is that the general consensus is 38%. However, like others have said, you have to be able to calculate the level of the talent lost/retained. One other thing that I have been paying attention to is when those players have left. Was it as an underclassman or upperclassmen? How many games have they played and how many they have started because experienced players can translate to higher talent in some cases. To do this, I am pulling stats from all four teams Nebraska has lost to, as well as Michigan and Florida, which were the two schools that the author of that article (AKA: biggest Nebraska fan troll that I have ever personally known) was referencing in comparison. If you cross all of this with injury status, so far, it paints some interesting perspective.

 

It does take a lot of time, but I hope to post exact numbers soon.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Our "pathetic" team (per the recruiting gurus) however managed to score 21 points on a team that had only allowed 13 the previous few games.

 

It's not talent. It's coaching..............

 

So you're suggesting Nebraska did better against Wisconsin than it was expected to. And the reason is coaching.