Current Ranking 2016 Class

[BigRedBuster]

So I just calculated an average score for the final team scores 2011-2015 on the 247 composite. This is what I got:

 

rank 10: 267

rank 15: 252

rank 20: 240

rank 25: 228

rank 30: 213

 

you can use the class calculator on 247 to get a projected final class score based on adding or subtracting recruits. Then compare it against my averages above will give you a rough idea of where we might end up. of course the scores for each rank fluctuate every year, but if you are bored give it a try.

If we add Lamar Jackson, Fitzpatrick, Farniok and Simmons, that brings us up to 226.34 and an average player rating of .8755.

[Mavric]

Just tot take it a step farther and looking at last year since those classes are all complete.

 

15th team .8908

16th team .8713

25th team .8642

 

The 15th team was slightly higher but right away the 16th team's average rating was right back down close to the 25th.

 

And what's the difference between 25 and 35?

[BigRedBuster]

 

Just tot take it a step farther and looking at last year since those classes are all complete.

 

15th team .8908

16th team .8713

25th team .8642

 

The 15th team was slightly higher but right away the 16th team's average rating was right back down close to the 25th.

 

And what's the difference between 25 and 35?

 

There you see a bigger drop.

 

25th team .8642

35th team .8071

 

I honestly can't see a situation where we drop below .86xx.

[Mavric]

Are you putting those in order of how they actually rank the classes or re-sorting them by average?

[BigRedBuster]

Are you putting those in order of how they actually rank the classes or re-sorting them by average?

I am simply going to the 247 team ranking for last year and looking at their average player rating. So, no it is not sorted by player rating. It's done on the class score like they typically rank their classes.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

So I just calculated an average score for the final team scores 2011-2015 on the 247 composite. This is what I got:

 

rank 10: 267

rank 15: 252

rank 20: 240

rank 25: 228

rank 30: 213

 

you can use the class calculator on 247 to get a projected final class score based on adding or subtracting recruits. Then compare it against my averages above will give you a rough idea of where we might end up. of course the scores for each rank fluctuate every year, but if you are bored give it a try.

If we add Lamar Jackson, Fitzpatrick, Farniok and Simmons, that brings us up to 226.34 and an average player rating of .8755.

 

 

Yeah, that's about what I'm seeing, too. That score puts us around 26th ranked. I thought we might be higher than that based on getting most of our top targets, but all the other teams are upgrading at the same time. If we miss on a couple of the higher rated guys we could slip closer to 30th.

[84HuskerLaw]

 

 

So I just calculated an average score for the final team scores 2011-2015 on the 247 composite. This is what I got:

 

rank 10: 267

rank 15: 252

rank 20: 240

rank 25: 228

rank 30: 213

 

you can use the class calculator on 247 to get a projected final class score based on adding or subtracting recruits. Then compare it against my averages above will give you a rough idea of where we might end up. of course the scores for each rank fluctuate every year, but if you are bored give it a try.

If we add Lamar Jackson, Fitzpatrick, Farniok and Simmons, that brings us up to 226.34 and an average player rating of .8755.

 

 

Yeah, that's about what I'm seeing, too. That score puts us around 26th ranked. I thought we might be higher than that based on getting most of our top targets, but all the other teams are upgrading at the same time. If we miss on a couple of the higher rated guys we could slip closer to 30th.

 

Question: It may be just my observation and not truly correct mathematically but it seems that over the years the recruiting services tend to downgrade Nebraska commits and upgrade the commits of the typical national recruiting leaders'. Thus, if you drop Husker recruits and raise recruits to the Florida schools, the Ohio States, USCs, SEC schools, Michigans, etc., you are going to clearly lower Nebraska's standing relative to the others. It just seems to me they drop kids they choose Nebraska over other schools. The same kid commits to OU and he is a higher grade recruit than if he chooses Nebraska.

Not sure how one can really tell if this is in fact true but it seems to me I've seen that over the years quite often. And, an early commit to Nebraska (before being rated for example) almost never gets seriously upgraded. Therefore, I look at the comparisons with a serious doubt.

[Atbone95]

 

 

 

So I just calculated an average score for the final team scores 2011-2015 on the 247 composite. This is what I got:

 

rank 10: 267

rank 15: 252

rank 20: 240

rank 25: 228

rank 30: 213

 

you can use the class calculator on 247 to get a projected final class score based on adding or subtracting recruits. Then compare it against my averages above will give you a rough idea of where we might end up. of course the scores for each rank fluctuate every year, but if you are bored give it a try.

If we add Lamar Jackson, Fitzpatrick, Farniok and Simmons, that brings us up to 226.34 and an average player rating of .8755.

 

 

Yeah, that's about what I'm seeing, too. That score puts us around 26th ranked. I thought we might be higher than that based on getting most of our top targets, but all the other teams are upgrading at the same time. If we miss on a couple of the higher rated guys we could slip closer to 30th.

 

Question: It may be just my observation and not truly correct mathematically but it seems that over the years the recruiting services tend to downgrade Nebraska commits and upgrade the commits of the typical national recruiting leaders'. Thus, if you drop Husker recruits and raise recruits to the Florida schools, the Ohio States, USCs, SEC schools, Michigans, etc., you are going to clearly lower Nebraska's standing relative to the others. It just seems to me they drop kids they choose Nebraska over other schools. The same kid commits to OU and he is a higher grade recruit than if he chooses Nebraska.

Not sure how one can really tell if this is in fact true but it seems to me I've seen that over the years quite often. And, an early commit to Nebraska (before being rated for example) almost never gets seriously upgraded. Therefore, I look at the comparisons with a serious doubt.

 

I think that is just the fan in most of us as opposed to a recruiting service's bias towards one particular school.

[Mavric]

 

Are you putting those in order of how they actually rank the classes or re-sorting them by average?

I am simply going to the 247 team ranking for last year and looking at their average player rating. So, no it is not sorted by player rating. It's done on the class score like they typically rank their classes.

 

 

Doing it that way doesn't really tell you anything because it's a crap shoot depending on how may guys the team that happened to end up in that spot signed.

 

I took the Top 50 overall rated 2016 classes using the 247 Composite and re-sorted them by average star rating.

 

The 15th best class was .8870

The 25th best class was .8738

The 35th best class was .8533

 

So there is a little more drop-off from 25-35 than from 15-25 but not much. Nebraska is #28 using that method, btw.

 

I tried to do the same for 2015 but including the walk-ons makes a mess of it.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Are you putting those in order of how they actually rank the classes or re-sorting them by average?

I am simply going to the 247 team ranking for last year and looking at their average player rating. So, no it is not sorted by player rating. It's done on the class score like they typically rank their classes.

 

 

Doing it that way doesn't really tell you anything because it's a crap shoot depending on how may guys the team that happened to end up in that spot signed.

 

I took the Top 50 overall rated 2016 classes using the 247 Composite and re-sorted them by average star rating.

 

The 15th best class was .8870

The 25th best class was .8738

The 35th best class was .8533

 

So there is a little more drop-off from 25-35 than from 15-25 but not much. Nebraska is #28 using that method, btw.

 

I tried to do the same for 2015 but including the walk-ons makes a mess of it.

 

true.

 

But, one point I wanted to make is towards the people who get all worked up with the fact we have a 25th ranked team compared to 15th. The fact is, there might very well not be much difference in the quality of the recruits between the two. Maybe a school has more scholarships they can give out...etc. which propels them up the rankings.

 

Fact is, once you get in that range, you have a pretty decent class.

[marko polo]

 

 

 

Are you putting those in order of how they actually rank the classes or re-sorting them by average?

I am simply going to the 247 team ranking for last year and looking at their average player rating. So, no it is not sorted by player rating. It's done on the class score like they typically rank their classes.

 

 

Doing it that way doesn't really tell you anything because it's a crap shoot depending on how may guys the team that happened to end up in that spot signed.

 

I took the Top 50 overall rated 2016 classes using the 247 Composite and re-sorted them by average star rating.

 

The 15th best class was .8870

The 25th best class was .8738

The 35th best class was .8533

 

So there is a little more drop-off from 25-35 than from 15-25 but not much. Nebraska is #28 using that method, btw.

 

I tried to do the same for 2015 but including the walk-ons makes a mess of it.

 

true.

 

But, one point I wanted to make is towards the people who get all worked up with the fact we have a 25th ranked team compared to 15th. The fact is, there might very well not be much difference in the quality of the recruits between the two. Maybe a school has more scholarships they can give out...etc. which propels them up the rankings.

 

Fact is, once you get in that range, you have a pretty decent class.

 

Fact is that is about the class we have been getting. We see how far that has taken us. BRB I think you lead the group in that ol bar lowering deal, spin and spin and spin.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Are you putting those in order of how they actually rank the classes or re-sorting them by average?

I am simply going to the 247 team ranking for last year and looking at their average player rating. So, no it is not sorted by player rating. It's done on the class score like they typically rank their classes.

 

 

Doing it that way doesn't really tell you anything because it's a crap shoot depending on how may guys the team that happened to end up in that spot signed.

 

I took the Top 50 overall rated 2016 classes using the 247 Composite and re-sorted them by average star rating.

 

The 15th best class was .8870

The 25th best class was .8738

The 35th best class was .8533

 

So there is a little more drop-off from 25-35 than from 15-25 but not much. Nebraska is #28 using that method, btw.

 

I tried to do the same for 2015 but including the walk-ons makes a mess of it.

 

true.

 

But, one point I wanted to make is towards the people who get all worked up with the fact we have a 25th ranked team compared to 15th. The fact is, there might very well not be much difference in the quality of the recruits between the two. Maybe a school has more scholarships they can give out...etc. which propels them up the rankings.

 

Fact is, once you get in that range, you have a pretty decent class.

 

Fact is that is about the class we have been getting. We see how far that has taken us. BRB I think you lead the group in that ol bar lowering deal, spin and spin and spin.

 

wtf????

 

Please explain to me the great difference in the quality of players on average in the 25th ranked class compared to the 15th ranked class?

[84HuskerLaw]

 

 

 

 

 

Are you putting those in order of how they actually rank the classes or re-sorting them by average?

I am simply going to the 247 team ranking for last year and looking at their average player rating. So, no it is not sorted by player rating. It's done on the class score like they typically rank their classes.

 

 

Doing it that way doesn't really tell you anything because it's a crap shoot depending on how may guys the team that happened to end up in that spot signed.

 

I took the Top 50 overall rated 2016 classes using the 247 Composite and re-sorted them by average star rating.

 

The 15th best class was .8870

The 25th best class was .8738

The 35th best class was .8533

 

So there is a little more drop-off from 25-35 than from 15-25 but not much. Nebraska is #28 using that method, btw.

 

I tried to do the same for 2015 but including the walk-ons makes a mess of it.

 

true.

 

But, one point I wanted to make is towards the people who get all worked up with the fact we have a 25th ranked team compared to 15th. The fact is, there might very well not be much difference in the quality of the recruits between the two. Maybe a school has more scholarships they can give out...etc. which propels them up the rankings.

 

Fact is, once you get in that range, you have a pretty decent class.

 

Fact is that is about the class we have been getting. We see how far that has taken us. BRB I think you lead the group in that ol bar lowering deal, spin and spin and spin.

 

wtf????

 

Please explain to me the great difference in the quality of players on average in the 25th ranked class compared to the 15th ranked class?

 

I would suggest a possible explanation for the difference between the observed success that schools with the 'top ten' level rated class recruiting averages and the rest NOT the average of the entire class. Rather, I think it is more then number of 'great' players at the school.

By this I mean to suggest that , for example, while Alabama may have landed the top rated recruiting classes over the past 5 years, for example, which averaged 90.00 while the number the school such as Nebraska averaged number 29 in recruiting classes over the same period (scored @ 84.5), the difference between competing for titles and being where we are is NOT the bottom half of the recruiting classes (perhaps 3 star players for example) it is the number of 4 and 5 stars. I believe the great bulk of the 'great players' are 4 and 5 stars. Alabama likely has 20 'great' players while Nebraska has perhaps 4. That just won't cut it.

I would further submit that if you took away the top 22 players from both Nebraska and Alabama, the remaining difference between players' average ratings would grow further. If you compared Nebraska's athletic 'talent' level in 1995, you would find our third string was better than our starters this year. Frankly, I believe the '95 team was the most talented college football team EVER. Even after 20 years, there have bene no other teams yet to rival the sheer depth and scope of football talent. But, the gap is getting much closer as the Alabamas, Ohio States and other 'elite' programs are gathering tremendous numbers of the very best players. I believe the 'haves' are getting richer and the have nots are getting poorer.

The real risk is that Nebraska is very close to being on the outside looking in for the foreseeable future. The coming 5 years are critical in my view. We must break through and return to the top 10 probrams in that time or we likely won't ever get there again. An entire generation will have passed since our program was in fact elite. Far too many young people will not have any real idea of the Husker history, greatness and mystic.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you putting those in order of how they actually rank the classes or re-sorting them by average?

I am simply going to the 247 team ranking for last year and looking at their average player rating. So, no it is not sorted by player rating. It's done on the class score like they typically rank their classes.

 

 

Doing it that way doesn't really tell you anything because it's a crap shoot depending on how may guys the team that happened to end up in that spot signed.

 

I took the Top 50 overall rated 2016 classes using the 247 Composite and re-sorted them by average star rating.

 

The 15th best class was .8870

The 25th best class was .8738

The 35th best class was .8533

 

So there is a little more drop-off from 25-35 than from 15-25 but not much. Nebraska is #28 using that method, btw.

 

I tried to do the same for 2015 but including the walk-ons makes a mess of it.

 

true.

 

But, one point I wanted to make is towards the people who get all worked up with the fact we have a 25th ranked team compared to 15th. The fact is, there might very well not be much difference in the quality of the recruits between the two. Maybe a school has more scholarships they can give out...etc. which propels them up the rankings.

 

Fact is, once you get in that range, you have a pretty decent class.

 

Fact is that is about the class we have been getting. We see how far that has taken us. BRB I think you lead the group in that ol bar lowering deal, spin and spin and spin.

 

wtf????

 

Please explain to me the great difference in the quality of players on average in the 25th ranked class compared to the 15th ranked class?

 

I would suggest a possible explanation for the difference between the observed success that schools with the 'top ten' level rated class recruiting averages and the rest NOT the average of the entire class. Rather, I think it is more then number of 'great' players at the school.

By this I mean to suggest that , for example, while Alabama may have landed the top rated recruiting classes over the past 5 years, for example, which averaged 90.00 while the number the school such as Nebraska averaged number 29 in recruiting classes over the same period (scored @ 84.5), the difference between competing for titles and being where we are is NOT the bottom half of the recruiting classes (perhaps 3 star players for example) it is the number of 4 and 5 stars. I believe the great bulk of the 'great players' are 4 and 5 stars. Alabama likely has 20 'great' players while Nebraska has perhaps 4. That just won't cut it.

I would further submit that if you took away the top 22 players from both Nebraska and Alabama, the remaining difference between players' average ratings would grow further. If you compared Nebraska's athletic 'talent' level in 1995, you would find our third string was better than our starters this year. Frankly, I believe the '95 team was the most talented college football team EVER. Even after 20 years, there have bene no other teams yet to rival the sheer depth and scope of football talent. But, the gap is getting much closer as the Alabamas, Ohio States and other 'elite' programs are gathering tremendous numbers of the very best players. I believe the 'haves' are getting richer and the have nots are getting poorer.

The real risk is that Nebraska is very close to being on the outside looking in for the foreseeable future. The coming 5 years are critical in my view. We must break through and return to the top 10 probrams in that time or we likely won't ever get there again. An entire generation will have passed since our program was in fact elite. Far too many young people will not have any real idea of the Husker history, greatness and mystic.

 

Not once in any of these posts have I ever even discussed top 10 classes compared to what Nebraska is getting. Clearly, if you have the #1 class in the country right now, you probably have on average a much better class than what Nebraska has.

 

But, that's not the conversation that was being had.

We were talking about the difference between the 15th rated class and the 25th rated class and the quality of players in those classes. Numbers in the class can have a big impact on this area of rankings and sometimes that is out of the programs hands.

 

Also to the bolded part.

 

That is simply over exaggeration. If we don't get back to the top 10 in the next 10 years, everyone will be frustrated and not happy including me. But, spare me the...."We will never get back there then". Never is one hell of a long time and it's been proven over and over again that a program like Nebraska can be down for a long time and then all of a sudden the right coaches and players come together to raise the level of the program.

[84HuskerLaw]

BigRedBuster:

 

Not sure what your gripe with me or my comments is really as I was not picking on anyone. Just trying to respond to the question that was asked. My point is - though this is an over simplification in my mind - that the overall class rating uses all the players and their individual ratings and combines them into one overall 'class total or score'. I believe within a class of a bunch of two stars, a given school might have 3 or 4 'great' players and those players can propel a given team to great success in any given year. My point also being that have great players (not just a ton of good or average ones) is the key to winning championships. Great players are the so-called 'difference' makers that often decide the winner of the game by making the clutch catches, the clutch passes, the key sacks, the critical interception, or the extra special effort to gain the first down at the right time to determine the outcome of a drive or series. We have come up short on those types of players for decades now. Not to say we have had none but that we have not had nearly enough of them to win those big games and avoid the ugly upset losses. Sometimes a team can play poorly or the weather or key injuries to important players or even positions results in weaknesses developing on an otherwise solide team. In those cases, difference makers (great players) step up and can help the whole team pull out the critical wins. I cite a player like Matt Davison and his critical catches or Tommy Frasier and his key first down scrambles/runs or throws in the arms of a would be tacker, etc. We can go on and on citing invididual players who made 'great' or key plays in critical times. We have just not had nearly enough. Ameer made some of these plays. Tommy Armstrong had a few but not nearly enough to off set his miscues.