Enhance Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Apologies to those who have seen this stat I'm about to post before, but I just wanted to add it to the conversation. The last 10 national champions have recruited a Top 10 class in the year prior to winning a national title. Now, I'm not saying those incoming recruits directly correlate to the championship (most of them don't even play that first year). And this doesn't necessarily mean that this will be an absolute qualifier for predicting every future national champion. Many of the schools that recruit Top 10 classes recruit at an elite level regularly. It is interesting to consider, though. Although the Elite Player Ratio is a more solid analysis, you could guess (with relative accuracy) that next year's champion will probably have pulled in a Top 10 class in 2016. Quote Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Just as a follow up, 19 different teams have had top 10 ranked classes since 2011. Is it really surprising that the NC winner came from one of those 19 teams when we can eliminate every non-P5 school and pretty much the entire lower third of any P5 conference from contention? That means that roughly 50% of the "eligible" teams for NC winning have had a top 10 class. The odds of one of those teams winning the NC during the past 11 seasons is pretty high. Notably, the following teams also had multiple top 10 classes during the same span (and produced varying to mediocre results): Auburn (5) LSU (4) USC (4) Georgia (3) Texas A&M (2) Texas (2) Ole Miss (2) Tennessee (2) Combine that with the chart about the top 25's average rankings that Mavric posted for this year, and I'm not surprised the recruitnik media wants people focusing only on the NC winner when evaluating the recruiting services relevance and accuracy. CM...you don't know what you're talking about... as usual. The metric that is 100% accurate in predicting who can win a national championship is the Elite Player Ratio. As in 100% accurate. The metric is easy to understand... obviously too easy for you to understand. It simply works like this. You take the teams previous 4 years of recruiting and total up the number of elite (4 and 5 star players) that the team signed in the previous 4 years versus the number of average (3 stare or less)... before winning a national championship. Only teams that have recruited more than 50% elite players versus average players in the previous 4 years of recruiting have a chance to win the National Championship. A perfect example is Alabama this year. In Alabama's previous 4 years of recruiting (2014-2013-2012-2011) Alabama signed 70 elite players (4 and 5 star) and only 29 average players (3 star or less). So the totals for Alabama are 70 elite players versus 29 average players. Alabama was the only team in the playoff this year that met the metric of having signed 50% or more elite players than average players. Again... Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. This Metric has been 100% accurate for the last 11 years. Any team that has not met the metric has had no chance of winning a national championship for the last 11 years straight. Period The Elite Player Ratio has Nothing whatsoever to do with recruiting class rankings. Nothing as in zero. This metric was discovered by this writer last year: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships CM... please stop misinforming and confusing everyone. I don't want to look one-sided so I need to say you have no idea what you're talking about. 1 Quote Link to comment
NUance Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Just as a follow up, 19 different teams have had top 10 ranked classes since 2011. Is it really surprising that the NC winner came from one of those 19 teams when we can eliminate every non-P5 school and pretty much the entire lower third of any P5 conference from contention? That means that roughly 50% of the "eligible" teams for NC winning have had a top 10 class. The odds of one of those teams winning the NC during the past 11 seasons is pretty high. Notably, the following teams also had multiple top 10 classes during the same span (and produced varying to mediocre results): Auburn (5) LSU (4) USC (4) Georgia (3) Texas A&M (2) Texas (2) Ole Miss (2) Tennessee (2) Combine that with the chart about the top 25's average rankings that Mavric posted for this year, and I'm not surprised the recruitnik media wants people focusing only on the NC winner when evaluating the recruiting services relevance and accuracy. CM...you don't know what you're talking about... as usual. The metric that is 100% accurate in predicting who can win a national championship is the Elite Player Ratio. As in 100% accurate. The metric is easy to understand... obviously too easy for you to understand. It simply works like this. You take the teams previous 4 years of recruiting and total up the number of elite (4 and 5 star players) that the team signed in the previous 4 years versus the number of average (3 stare or less)... before winning a national championship. Only teams that have recruited more than 50% elite players versus average players in the previous 4 years of recruiting have a chance to win the National Championship. A perfect example is Alabama this year. In Alabama's previous 4 years of recruiting (2014-2013-2012-2011) Alabama signed 70 elite players (4 and 5 star) and only 29 average players (3 star or less). So the totals for Alabama are 70 elite players versus 29 average players. Alabama was the only team in the playoff this year that met the metric of having signed 50% or more elite players than average players. Again... Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. This Metric has been 100% accurate for the last 11 years. Any team that has not met the metric has had no chance of winning a national championship for the last 11 years straight. Period The Elite Player Ratio has Nothing whatsoever to do with recruiting class rankings. Nothing as in zero. This metric was discovered by this writer last year: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships CM... please stop misinforming and confusing everyone. Wow! 100% accuracy. No team who doesn't meet the metric even has a chance at winning the MNC. Not even a *chance*! Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. But weren't there other teams in the nation besides Alabama who met the Elite Player Ratio? Why didn't those other teams make the playoff? And Alabama didn't run the table. How could Ole Miss possibly have beaten Alabama back in September? Doesn't the Elite Player Ratio work for regular season games? And what about Clemson in the MNC game? They were ahead of Bama midway through the 4th quarter. But apparently, despite having the lead in the 4th quarter, Clemson didn't have any chance at all to win since they didn't meet the Elite Player Ratio but Alabama did. I find all these things perplexing. =============================================================== I agree that recruiting is important. Everyone agrees. Undoubtedly recruiting is the single most important factor there is. But don't you think there are other factors that come into play as well? Like, say, coaching, injuries, academics, booze and drugs, girlfriends, etc. If the Elite Player Ratio was 100% accurate we could just go ahead and carve the team names on the MNC trophies right now for the 2016-2019 seasons. Because we know who won the last four NSDs. Quote Link to comment
RedDenver Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The metric that is 100% accurate in predicting who can win a national championship is the Elite Player Ratio. As in 100% accurate. Does the phrase 20/20 hindsight mean anything to you? Here are a few other 100% accurate "metrics": All of the CFB Playoff champions come from a state that starts with a vowel!!! All of the CFB Playoff champions have a head coach with 5 letters in his last name!!! All of the CFB Playoff champions won a conference championship game!!! All of the CFB Playoff champions have exactly one loss!!! The last 10 BCS and CFB Playoff champions (in a row!) have come from eastern half of the continental US!!! I leave additional AMAZING hindsights as an exercise for the reader. 2 Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Just as a follow up, 19 different teams have had top 10 ranked classes since 2011. Is it really surprising that the NC winner came from one of those 19 teams when we can eliminate every non-P5 school and pretty much the entire lower third of any P5 conference from contention? That means that roughly 50% of the "eligible" teams for NC winning have had a top 10 class. The odds of one of those teams winning the NC during the past 11 seasons is pretty high. Notably, the following teams also had multiple top 10 classes during the same span (and produced varying to mediocre results): Auburn (5) LSU (4) USC (4) Georgia (3) Texas A&M (2) Texas (2) Ole Miss (2) Tennessee (2) Combine that with the chart about the top 25's average rankings that Mavric posted for this year, and I'm not surprised the recruitnik media wants people focusing only on the NC winner when evaluating the recruiting services relevance and accuracy. CM...you don't know what you're talking about... as usual. The metric that is 100% accurate in predicting who can win a national championship is the Elite Player Ratio. As in 100% accurate. The metric is easy to understand... obviously too easy for you to understand. It simply works like this. You take the teams previous 4 years of recruiting and total up the number of elite (4 and 5 star players) that the team signed in the previous 4 years versus the number of average (3 stare or less)... before winning a national championship. Only teams that have recruited more than 50% elite players versus average players in the previous 4 years of recruiting have a chance to win the National Championship. A perfect example is Alabama this year. In Alabama's previous 4 years of recruiting (2014-2013-2012-2011) Alabama signed 70 elite players (4 and 5 star) and only 29 average players (3 star or less). So the totals for Alabama are 70 elite players versus 29 average players. Alabama was the only team in the playoff this year that met the metric of having signed 50% or more elite players than average players. Again... Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. This Metric has been 100% accurate for the last 11 years. Any team that has not met the metric has had no chance of winning a national championship for the last 11 years straight. Period The Elite Player Ratio has Nothing whatsoever to do with recruiting class rankings. Nothing as in zero. This metric was discovered by this writer last year: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships CM... please stop misinforming and confusing everyone. Wow! 100% accuracy. No team who doesn't meet the metric even has a chance at winning the MNC. Not even a *chance*! Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. But weren't there other teams in the nation besides Alabama who met the Elite Player Ratio? Why didn't those other teams make the playoff? And Alabama didn't run the table. How could Ole Miss possibly have beaten Alabama back in September? Doesn't the Elite Player Ratio work for regular season games? And what about Clemson in the MNC game? They were ahead of Bama midway through the 4th quarter. But apparently, despite having the lead in the 4th quarter, Clemson didn't have any chance at all to win since they didn't meet the Elite Player Ratio but Alabama did. I find all these things perplexing. =============================================================== I agree that recruiting is important. Everyone agrees. Undoubtedly recruiting is the single most important factor there is. But don't you think there are other factors that come into play as well? Like, say, coaching, injuries, academics, booze and drugs, girlfriends, etc. If the Elite Player Ratio was 100% accurate we could just go ahead and carve the team names on the MNC trophies right now for the 2016-2019 seasons. Because we know who won the last four NSDs. All teams that have won the national championship in the last 11 years have all achieved the Elite Player Ratio. That fact is probably the most important metric ever discovered in the history of college football. The Nebraska football program has ignored that fact for a very long time. Achieving that metric... and winning National Championships is a result of great recruiting and great coaching. Nebraska had a loosing season this year... and only signed 4 elite players in this years recruiting class. Those 2 facts about this year... could not possibly indicate to anyone paying attention that the Nebraska football program understands the importance of great recruiting or great coaching... and unfortunately it indicates that the Nebraska football program has not learned anything whatsoever in the last 15 years... about the importance of great coaching and great recruiting. Doesn't anyone think it's about time we learned something ? Doesn't anyone think it's about time we actually did something about it ? Sad to say... our football program is obviously incapable of learning or making the necessary changes... which we need to have happen in order to get back to playing elite football. And when you say that "everyone agrees" about the importance of great recruiting... well... take a look at the comment above this one (#140)... that's the nonsense we get. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I don't want to look one-sided so I need to say you have no idea what you're talking about. You didn't understand the sbnation article ? Then you are incapable of understanding football. Quote Link to comment
NUance Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Just as a follow up, 19 different teams have had top 10 ranked classes since 2011. Is it really surprising that the NC winner came from one of those 19 teams when we can eliminate every non-P5 school and pretty much the entire lower third of any P5 conference from contention? That means that roughly 50% of the "eligible" teams for NC winning have had a top 10 class. The odds of one of those teams winning the NC during the past 11 seasons is pretty high. Notably, the following teams also had multiple top 10 classes during the same span (and produced varying to mediocre results): Auburn (5) LSU (4) USC (4) Georgia (3) Texas A&M (2) Texas (2) Ole Miss (2) Tennessee (2) Combine that with the chart about the top 25's average rankings that Mavric posted for this year, and I'm not surprised the recruitnik media wants people focusing only on the NC winner when evaluating the recruiting services relevance and accuracy. CM...you don't know what you're talking about... as usual. The metric that is 100% accurate in predicting who can win a national championship is the Elite Player Ratio. As in 100% accurate. The metric is easy to understand... obviously too easy for you to understand. It simply works like this. You take the teams previous 4 years of recruiting and total up the number of elite (4 and 5 star players) that the team signed in the previous 4 years versus the number of average (3 stare or less)... before winning a national championship. Only teams that have recruited more than 50% elite players versus average players in the previous 4 years of recruiting have a chance to win the National Championship. A perfect example is Alabama this year. In Alabama's previous 4 years of recruiting (2014-2013-2012-2011) Alabama signed 70 elite players (4 and 5 star) and only 29 average players (3 star or less). So the totals for Alabama are 70 elite players versus 29 average players. Alabama was the only team in the playoff this year that met the metric of having signed 50% or more elite players than average players. Again... Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. This Metric has been 100% accurate for the last 11 years. Any team that has not met the metric has had no chance of winning a national championship for the last 11 years straight. Period The Elite Player Ratio has Nothing whatsoever to do with recruiting class rankings. Nothing as in zero. This metric was discovered by this writer last year: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships CM... please stop misinforming and confusing everyone. Wow! 100% accuracy. No team who doesn't meet the metric even has a chance at winning the MNC. Not even a *chance*! Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. But weren't there other teams in the nation besides Alabama who met the Elite Player Ratio? Why didn't those other teams make the playoff? And Alabama didn't run the table. How could Ole Miss possibly have beaten Alabama back in September? Doesn't the Elite Player Ratio work for regular season games? And what about Clemson in the MNC game? They were ahead of Bama midway through the 4th quarter. But apparently, despite having the lead in the 4th quarter, Clemson didn't have any chance at all to win since they didn't meet the Elite Player Ratio but Alabama did. I find all these things perplexing. =============================================================== I agree that recruiting is important. Everyone agrees. Undoubtedly recruiting is the single most important factor there is. But don't you think there are other factors that come into play as well? Like, say, coaching, injuries, academics, booze and drugs, girlfriends, etc. If the Elite Player Ratio was 100% accurate we could just go ahead and carve the team names on the MNC trophies right now for the 2016-2019 seasons. Because we know who won the last four NSDs. All teams that have won the national championship in the last 11 years have all achieved the Elite Player Ratio. That fact is probably the most important metric ever discovered in the history of college football. The Nebraska football program has ignored that fact for a very long time. Achieving that metric... and winning National Championships is a result of great recruiting and great coaching. Nebraska had a loosing season this year... and only signed 4 elite players in this years recruiting class. Those 2 facts about this year... could not possibly indicate to anyone paying attention that the Nebraska football program understands the importance of great recruiting or great coaching... and unfortunately it indicates that the Nebraska football program has not learned anything whatsoever in the last 15 years... about the importance of great coaching and great recruiting. Doesn't anyone think it's about time we learned something ? Doesn't anyone think it's about time we actually did something about it ? Sad to say... our football program is obviously incapable of learning or making the necessary changes... which we need to have happen in order to get back to playing elite football. And when you say that "everyone agrees" about the importance of great recruiting... well... take a look at the comment above this one (#140)... that's the nonsense we get. The reason I wrote the post above mocking you is because everyone in the entire world—both fans and coaches alike—know that better recruiting tends to lead to better results on the field. Yet for some strange reason you seem to think that the NU athletic department hasn't figured that out yet. The problem is, it's not just a matter of deciding to go out and sign only 4* and 5* recruits. If it was that easy, all teams would just go out and sign twenty guys off the Army All-American teams each year. But not all teams can pull in 4* and 5* players because elite football recruits are a scarce resource. We are competing with over a hundred other teams for the best recruits at each position on the field. Nebraska has a huge recruiting budget and goes to great lengths to pull in the best recruits we can. You do realize this, right? Also, the Elite Player Ratio is a good predictor of results. Very good. But it's not a fact. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Just as a follow up, 19 different teams have had top 10 ranked classes since 2011. Is it really surprising that the NC winner came from one of those 19 teams when we can eliminate every non-P5 school and pretty much the entire lower third of any P5 conference from contention? That means that roughly 50% of the "eligible" teams for NC winning have had a top 10 class. The odds of one of those teams winning the NC during the past 11 seasons is pretty high. Notably, the following teams also had multiple top 10 classes during the same span (and produced varying to mediocre results): Auburn (5) LSU (4) USC (4) Georgia (3) Texas A&M (2) Texas (2) Ole Miss (2) Tennessee (2) Combine that with the chart about the top 25's average rankings that Mavric posted for this year, and I'm not surprised the recruitnik media wants people focusing only on the NC winner when evaluating the recruiting services relevance and accuracy. CM...you don't know what you're talking about... as usual. The metric that is 100% accurate in predicting who can win a national championship is the Elite Player Ratio. As in 100% accurate. The metric is easy to understand... obviously too easy for you to understand. It simply works like this. You take the teams previous 4 years of recruiting and total up the number of elite (4 and 5 star players) that the team signed in the previous 4 years versus the number of average (3 stare or less)... before winning a national championship. Only teams that have recruited more than 50% elite players versus average players in the previous 4 years of recruiting have a chance to win the National Championship. A perfect example is Alabama this year. In Alabama's previous 4 years of recruiting (2014-2013-2012-2011) Alabama signed 70 elite players (4 and 5 star) and only 29 average players (3 star or less). So the totals for Alabama are 70 elite players versus 29 average players. Alabama was the only team in the playoff this year that met the metric of having signed 50% or more elite players than average players. Again... Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. This Metric has been 100% accurate for the last 11 years. Any team that has not met the metric has had no chance of winning a national championship for the last 11 years straight. Period The Elite Player Ratio has Nothing whatsoever to do with recruiting class rankings. Nothing as in zero. This metric was discovered by this writer last year: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships CM... please stop misinforming and confusing everyone. Wow! 100% accuracy. No team who doesn't meet the metric even has a chance at winning the MNC. Not even a *chance*! Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. But weren't there other teams in the nation besides Alabama who met the Elite Player Ratio? Why didn't those other teams make the playoff? And Alabama didn't run the table. How could Ole Miss possibly have beaten Alabama back in September? Doesn't the Elite Player Ratio work for regular season games? And what about Clemson in the MNC game? They were ahead of Bama midway through the 4th quarter. But apparently, despite having the lead in the 4th quarter, Clemson didn't have any chance at all to win since they didn't meet the Elite Player Ratio but Alabama did. I find all these things perplexing. =============================================================== I agree that recruiting is important. Everyone agrees. Undoubtedly recruiting is the single most important factor there is. But don't you think there are other factors that come into play as well? Like, say, coaching, injuries, academics, booze and drugs, girlfriends, etc. If the Elite Player Ratio was 100% accurate we could just go ahead and carve the team names on the MNC trophies right now for the 2016-2019 seasons. Because we know who won the last four NSDs. All teams that have won the national championship in the last 11 years have all achieved the Elite Player Ratio. That fact is probably the most important metric ever discovered in the history of college football. The Nebraska football program has ignored that fact for a very long time. Achieving that metric... and winning National Championships is a result of great recruiting and great coaching. Nebraska had a loosing season this year... and only signed 4 elite players in this years recruiting class. Those 2 facts about this year... could not possibly indicate to anyone paying attention that the Nebraska football program understands the importance of great recruiting or great coaching... and unfortunately it indicates that the Nebraska football program has not learned anything whatsoever in the last 15 years... about the importance of great coaching and great recruiting. Doesn't anyone think it's about time we learned something ? Doesn't anyone think it's about time we actually did something about it ? Sad to say... our football program is obviously incapable of learning or making the necessary changes... which we need to have happen in order to get back to playing elite football. And when you say that "everyone agrees" about the importance of great recruiting... well... take a look at the comment above this one (#140)... that's the nonsense we get. The reason I wrote the post above mocking you is because everyone in the entire world—both fans and coaches—know that better recruiting tends to lead to better results on the field. Yet for some strange reason you seem to think that the NU athletic department hasn't figured that out yet. The problem is, it's not just a matter of deciding to go out and sign only 4* and 5* recruits. If it was that easy, all teams would just go out and sign twenty guys off the Army All-American teams each year. But not all teams can pull in 4* and 5* players because elite football recruits are a scarce resource. We are competing with over a hundred other teams for the best recruits at each position on the field. Nebraska has a huge recruiting budget and goes to great lengths to pull in the best recruits we can. You do realize this, right? Also, the Elite Player Ratio is a good predictor of results. Very good. But it's not a fact. NUance thanks for your reply 11 out of 11 times in a row is a fact. It's all about hiring great coaches and great recruiters. We had a loosing season and only signed 4 elite athletes in this years recruiting class... and that is also a fact. The amount of money we're spending means nothing if the people were giving the money to cant recruit or win games... and that's another fact. This year was just another steep leg down in our downward spiral. You're not mocking me, your mocking facts... and their not my facts... their facts discovered by sbnation... facts that the great coaches and great recruiters at places like Alabama and Ohio State and the other elite programs of today have known about for a long time... facts that the Nebraska football program refuses to learn and refuses to deal with. Sad to say, but... hubris on the part of those at the top of our program has caused this to happen. It's caused them to be blind and unable to see or understand the most basic aspects of what it takes to be successful in college football. That's what hubris does to people. Elite coaching and elite recruiting is what it's all about. Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 When you say NU has been ignoring this fact, are you arguing that NU is ignoring the best players it could be getting and instead electing to recruit players lower on its list? Because, if that's what you think, you're name is perfect. Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Just as a follow up, 19 different teams have had top 10 ranked classes since 2011. Is it really surprising that the NC winner came from one of those 19 teams when we can eliminate every non-P5 school and pretty much the entire lower third of any P5 conference from contention? That means that roughly 50% of the "eligible" teams for NC winning have had a top 10 class. The odds of one of those teams winning the NC during the past 11 seasons is pretty high. Notably, the following teams also had multiple top 10 classes during the same span (and produced varying to mediocre results): Auburn (5) LSU (4) USC (4) Georgia (3) Texas A&M (2) Texas (2) Ole Miss (2) Tennessee (2) Combine that with the chart about the top 25's average rankings that Mavric posted for this year, and I'm not surprised the recruitnik media wants people focusing only on the NC winner when evaluating the recruiting services relevance and accuracy. CM...you don't know what you're talking about... as usual. The metric that is 100% accurate in predicting who can win a national championship is the Elite Player Ratio. As in 100% accurate. The metric is easy to understand... obviously too easy for you to understand. It simply works like this. You take the teams previous 4 years of recruiting and total up the number of elite (4 and 5 star players) that the team signed in the previous 4 years versus the number of average (3 stare or less)... before winning a national championship. Only teams that have recruited more than 50% elite players versus average players in the previous 4 years of recruiting have a chance to win the National Championship. A perfect example is Alabama this year. In Alabama's previous 4 years of recruiting (2014-2013-2012-2011) Alabama signed 70 elite players (4 and 5 star) and only 29 average players (3 star or less). So the totals for Alabama are 70 elite players versus 29 average players. Alabama was the only team in the playoff this year that met the metric of having signed 50% or more elite players than average players. Again... Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. This Metric has been 100% accurate for the last 11 years. Any team that has not met the metric has had no chance of winning a national championship for the last 11 years straight. Period The Elite Player Ratio has Nothing whatsoever to do with recruiting class rankings. Nothing as in zero. This metric was discovered by this writer last year: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships CM... please stop misinforming and confusing everyone. Wow! 100% accuracy. No team who doesn't meet the metric even has a chance at winning the MNC. Not even a *chance*! Alabama was the only team in this years playoff that had met the Elite Player Ratio and of course they won. But weren't there other teams in the nation besides Alabama who met the Elite Player Ratio? Why didn't those other teams make the playoff? And Alabama didn't run the table. How could Ole Miss possibly have beaten Alabama back in September? Doesn't the Elite Player Ratio work for regular season games? And what about Clemson in the MNC game? They were ahead of Bama midway through the 4th quarter. But apparently, despite having the lead in the 4th quarter, Clemson didn't have any chance at all to win since they didn't meet the Elite Player Ratio but Alabama did. I find all these things perplexing. =============================================================== I agree that recruiting is important. Everyone agrees. Undoubtedly recruiting is the single most important factor there is. But don't you think there are other factors that come into play as well? Like, say, coaching, injuries, academics, booze and drugs, girlfriends, etc. If the Elite Player Ratio was 100% accurate we could just go ahead and carve the team names on the MNC trophies right now for the 2016-2019 seasons. Because we know who won the last four NSDs. All teams that have won the national championship in the last 11 years have all achieved the Elite Player Ratio. That fact is probably the most important metric ever discovered in the history of college football. The Nebraska football program has ignored that fact for a very long time. Achieving that metric... and winning National Championships is a result of great recruiting and great coaching. Nebraska had a loosing season this year... and only signed 4 elite players in this years recruiting class. Those 2 facts about this year... could not possibly indicate to anyone paying attention that the Nebraska football program understands the importance of great recruiting or great coaching... and unfortunately it indicates that the Nebraska football program has not learned anything whatsoever in the last 15 years... about the importance of great coaching and great recruiting. Doesn't anyone think it's about time we learned something ? Doesn't anyone think it's about time we actually did something about it ? Sad to say... our football program is obviously incapable of learning or making the necessary changes... which we need to have happen in order to get back to playing elite football. And when you say that "everyone agrees" about the importance of great recruiting... well... take a look at the comment above this one (#140)... that's the nonsense we get. The reason I wrote the post above mocking you is because everyone in the entire world—both fans and coaches—know that better recruiting tends to lead to better results on the field. Yet for some strange reason you seem to think that the NU athletic department hasn't figured that out yet. The problem is, it's not just a matter of deciding to go out and sign only 4* and 5* recruits. If it was that easy, all teams would just go out and sign twenty guys off the Army All-American teams each year. But not all teams can pull in 4* and 5* players because elite football recruits are a scarce resource. We are competing with over a hundred other teams for the best recruits at each position on the field. Nebraska has a huge recruiting budget and goes to great lengths to pull in the best recruits we can. You do realize this, right? Also, the Elite Player Ratio is a good predictor of results. Very good. But it's not a fact. Nuance thanks for your reply 11 out of 11 times in a row is a fact. It's all about hiring great coaches and great recruiters. We had a loosing season and only signed 4 elite athletes in this years recruiting class... and that is also a fact. The amount of money we're spending means nothing if the people were giving the money to cant recruit or win games... and that's another fact. This year was just another steep leg down in our downward spiral. You're not mocking me, your mocking facts... and their not my facts... their facts discovered by sbnation... facts that the great coaches and great recruiters at places like Alabama and Ohio State and the other elite programs of today have known about for a long time... facts that the Nebraska football program refuses to learn and refuses to deal with. Sad to say, but... hubris on the part of those at the top of our program has caused this to happen. It's caused them to be blind and unable to see or understand the most basic aspects of what it takes to be successful in college football. That's what hubris does to people. Elite coaching and elite recruiting is what it's all about. Nebraska will never - and I can say this with 99.9 percent assurance - never be able to recruit to the level of Alabama or even Ohio State. Nebraska may not have had as many titles in the 90's, but they were just as if not more dominant than Alabama is now, and the best average recruiting ranking we could manage in the 90's was right around 15 (I don't remember the exact number). Obviously, a lot of things have changed since then, but recruiting to Nebraska is not the same as recruiting to Alabama and it is unfair to try and suggest Nebraska should be at or near that standard. That does not mean Nebraska can't improve their recruiting because they certainly can. Bill Callahan proved it was still possible to haul in a Top 10 class to Nebraska even though nothing was really going the program's way. However, even he couldn't sustain it, dropping down to a ~23 ranked class the year following his Top 10 class. Also, as a side note, you can't literally state the elite player ratio is a fact. A prediction can never be considered a fact no matter how accurate it may or may not be. It is a prediction with 100 percent accuracy, so far. It is not a fact. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 When you say NU has been ignoring this fact, are you arguing that NU is ignoring the best players it could be getting and instead electing to recruit players lower on its list? Because, if that's what you think, you're name is perfect. No I'm saying we don't have elite coaches or elite recruiters who know how to do those things. And we don't have elite athletic directors who know how to hire elite coaches and recruiters who know how to do those things. And we don't have elite chancellors and board of regents members and major boosters who know how to hire elite athletic directors. We have no vision and no football intelligence or knowledge at the top. The regime that has been in place at the top of our program for the last 15 years... has squandered the franchise. Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 So... You include TO in that group as someone who doesn't understand football. Interesting. Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 There is no stat that says anything "has" to happen, anywhere. That's why they're stats. You're using a sample to make inferences on a long-run probability or population. let me state this another way. If I accept that 11 data points among 8 actors is sufficient to draw a conclusion, then the logical conclusions is: If a team wins a national championship, it's likely that they had at least 1 recruiting class ranked in the top 10. It is not purely logical to conclude: A team won a national championship because they had at least one class ranked in the top 10 (and wouldn't have won had they failed to have a class in the top 10). It's a subtle but important logical distinction that hinges on the necessity of the premise. To your point of past performance dictating future results, that's irrelevant here (and actually untrue or we'd all be rich in the stock market). The past winners and their circumstances (i.e. The past data pints) have nothing to do with, and certainly don't dictate, future data points. A simple example of the fault in your argument would be the notion that because 9 girls just walked by in a red dress, the next one will be in a red dress. Or more classically, because I just flipped 10 heads in a row, the next flip will be a heads. Past performance most certainly does matter in sports. Would you rather have stephen curry or Demarcus cousins take a last second 3 point shot to win the game? Everybody in the world would say curry because past performance tells us curry is more likely to make it. This is not analogous to the stock market (where you are correct, past performance is not a good indicator of future performance) or a closed universe flip of a coin example where there are only two possible outcomes with exactly the same probability. Yet if Steph Curry were playing for the Kings he would still be supremely talented but nowhere near a superstar. And with the right coach on the right team, Demarcus Cousins could be the most dominant player in the NBA. Talent is crucial, but it doesn't go anywhere without chemistry. Quote Link to comment
Husker Psycho Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 So... You include TO in that group as someone who doesn't understand football. Interesting. Thanks for bringing that up... I knew you would. NO person no matter how great is great at everything. TO... one of the greatest football coaches of all time... has been a disaster at hiring coaches and for our recruiting. The disaster and downfall of our great program and the hubris at the top of our program... started the day his hand picked successor was announced. Frank Solich's last two recruiting classes were ranked 40th in 2002... and 42nd in 2003. Here's how the recruiting for Nebraska in the big 12 looked in those two years with Frank Solich as head coach: 2002: 1: Texas 2: Oklahoma 3: Colorado 4: Kansas State 5: Texas A&M 6: Oklahoma State 7: Missouri 8: Iowa State 9: Nebraska 2003: 1: Oklahoma 2: Texas A&M 3: Oklahoma State 4: Texas 5: Colorado 6: Missouri 7: Kansas 8: Nebraska Solich was a disaster for Nebraska recruiting and started the long spiral downward to where we are at now. Solich's inability to recruit was alarming to many in those days, including me. Nebraska's willingness to allow Oklahoma and Texas to out recruit us was a disaster for our program. A disaster we have never recovered from. Texas won the national championship in 2005 based on their great recruiting in the previous 4 years. And the same great coach... Tom Osborne... also hand picked another coach for Nebraska... you may remember his name... Bo Pelini ring a bell ? You know... the guy who sabotaged our football program. I'll have more on him later. Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Nebraskans are often stubborn to the point of stupidity. 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.