STL Husker Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 The myth of Callahan's recruiting abilities live on, I guess...So are you going to give any information? No point. It's already been given. One of the big pieces is that he inherited more highly drafted players than he left Bo. His recruiting was uneven, relying too heavily on jucos to bolster recruitnik rankings, leaving an unbalanced roster that took a couple of years to fix. Also, if you look at California recruits, the attrition rate is much higher than other areas. It's good to grab a player here and there, but building a program founded on talent taken from 2000 miles away is poor strategy. Recruiting and having highly drafted players are two different things. I'm not saying Callahan was a good talent evaluator or player developer, but he was able to get kids to campus who wouldn't have otherwise been interested. A lot of the recruits we got at the time were heavily recruited and we were able to beat out many top schools at a time when things were very unsteady. I also haven't seen or heard anything about the attrition rates being higher for California recruits. I'll assume you are right, but I haven't noticed that it's any worse in our program. I would much rather have a pipeline in Calabasas than any high school in Nebraska. 1 Quote Link to comment
Judoka Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Always depressing to remember how hard that 2011 class ended up screwing the progrum. It was supposed to be the crown jewel in Pelini's recruiting efforts but we ended up with a bunch of highly rated players that never really panned out for various reasons. Aaron Green Jamal Turner Charles Jackson Bubba Starling Tyler Moore Todd Peat Ryan Klachko All 4-stars. Daimion Stafford probably did the most out of all of them but was only a 2-year player. Ryne Reeves played some football, but I don't really remember him standing out. I don't know of anyone that seriously thought Starling would play a down as a Husker. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Always depressing to remember how hard that 2011 class ended up screwing the progrum. It was supposed to be the crown jewel in Pelini's recruiting efforts but we ended up with a bunch of highly rated players that never really panned out for various reasons. Aaron Green Jamal Turner Charles Jackson Bubba Starling Tyler Moore Todd Peat Ryan Klachko All 4-stars. Daimion Stafford probably did the most out of all of them but was only a 2-year player. Ryne Reeves played some football, but I don't really remember him standing out. I don't know of anyone that seriously thought Starling would play a down as a Husker. There are beat writers who last year were still saying how they think he could still end up here. I'm not kidding. 1 Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Always depressing to remember how hard that 2011 class ended up screwing the progrum. It was supposed to be the crown jewel in Pelini's recruiting efforts but we ended up with a bunch of highly rated players that never really panned out for various reasons. Aaron Green Jamal Turner Charles Jackson Bubba Starling Tyler Moore Todd Peat Ryan Klachko All 4-stars. Daimion Stafford probably did the most out of all of them but was only a 2-year player. Ryne Reeves played some football, but I don't really remember him standing out. I don't know of anyone that seriously thought Starling would play a down as a Husker. Back then it seemed like there was a lot. I wasn't one of them. He's still one of the big reasons that class was rated so highly. Anyhow, I kinda agree with Enhance that we should try to veer this back to the original topic. I didn't even realize what thread I was in when I wrote that. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 The myth of Callahan's recruiting abilities live on, I guess... Thanks Wanderful for this chart. Class ratings can be skewed by number of commits - both upwards and downwards. Looking at the average rating of the recruits in each class is still an imperfect gauge but at least adjusts for number of commits: Here are the average ratings based on the scholarship signees using 247 Composite Class Average Recruits (# 4*+) 02 .8316 18 (2) 03 .8316 19 (2) 04 .8237 20 (2) 05* .8523 32 (7) 06* .8493 22 (5) 07* .8587 26 (6) 08 .8449 29 (3) 09 .8580 19 (2) 10* .8642 20 (5) 11 .8832 21 (9) 12 .8773 17 (8) 13 .8654 24 (7) 14 .8601 24 (2) 15 .8616 21 (4) 16 .8707 21 (5) * 2005 - Leon Jackson isn't on 247's list but was a 4* on Rivals * 2006 - Major Culbert doesn't show a rating on 247 but was a high 3* on Rivals * 2007 - Armando Murillo (JUCO) not included in 247's list * 2010 - Stanley Jean-Baptiste and Chase Harper (JUCOs) not included in 247's rankings 1 Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The myth of Callahan's recruiting abilities live on, I guess... Thanks Wanderful for this chart. Class ratings can be skewed by number of commits - both upwards and downwards. Looking at the average rating of the recruits in each class is still an imperfect gauge but at least adjusts for number of commits: Here are the average ratings based on the scholarship signees using 247 Composite Class Average Recruits (# 4*+) 02 .8316 18 (2) 03 .8316 19 (2) 04 .8237 20 (2) 05* .8523 32 (7) 06* .8493 22 (5) 07* .8587 26 (6) 08 .8449 29 (3) 09 .8580 19 (2) 10* .8642 20 (5) 11 .8832 21 (9) 12 .8773 17 (8) 13 .8654 24 (7) 14 .8601 24 (2) 15 .8616 21 (4) 16 .8707 21 (5) * 2005 - Leon Jackson isn't on 247's list but was a 4* on Rivals * 2006 - Major Culbert doesn't show a rating on 247 but was a high 3* on Rivals * 2007 - Armando Murillo (JUCO) not included in 247's list * 2010 - Stanley Jean-Baptiste and Chase Harper (JUCOs) not included in 247's rankings Random question, but do you know of where one might find the average ranking of the "top" 20 recruits from a given class? That would control some for the impact of a large or small class. Looking at those numbers, I've having a really hard time understanding how people have argued that recruiting has varied much over the past decade. Maybe the new facilities and increased investments will make a bit of a move, as well as the connections this staff has in California. My concern on the California front is that we can bring in highly ranked classes, but those classes will be at risk for lower productivity on average, which has historically been the case. 2 Quote Link to comment
wanderful Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The myth of Callahan's recruiting abilities live on, I guess... Thanks Wanderful for this chart. Class ratings can be skewed by number of commits - both upwards and downwards. Looking at the average rating of the recruits in each class is still an imperfect gauge but at least adjusts for number of commits: Here are the average ratings based on the scholarship signees using 247 Composite Class Average Recruits (# 4*+) 02 .8316 18 (2) 03 .8316 19 (2) 04 .8237 20 (2) 05* .8523 32 (7) 06* .8493 22 (5) 07* .8587 26 (6) 08 .8449 29 (3) 09 .8580 19 (2) 10* .8642 20 (5) 11 .8832 21 (9) 12 .8773 17 (8) 13 .8654 24 (7) 14 .8601 24 (2) 15 .8616 21 (4) 16 .8707 21 (5) * 2005 - Leon Jackson isn't on 247's list but was a 4* on Rivals * 2006 - Major Culbert doesn't show a rating on 247 but was a high 3* on Rivals * 2007 - Armando Murillo (JUCO) not included in 247's list * 2010 - Stanley Jean-Baptiste and Chase Harper (JUCOs) not included in 247's rankings Nice! If I get a chance, I'll redo the chart with these stats overlaid. Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The myth of Callahan's recruiting abilities live on, I guess... Thanks Wanderful for this chart. Class ratings can be skewed by number of commits - both upwards and downwards. Looking at the average rating of the recruits in each class is still an imperfect gauge but at least adjusts for number of commits: Here are the average ratings based on the scholarship signees using 247 Composite Class Average Recruits (# 4*+) 02 .8316 18 (2) 03 .8316 19 (2) 04 .8237 20 (2) 05* .8523 32 (7) 06* .8493 22 (5) 07* .8587 26 (6) 08 .8449 29 (3) 09 .8580 19 (2) 10* .8642 20 (5) 11 .8832 21 (9) 12 .8773 17 (8) 13 .8654 24 (7) 14 .8601 24 (2) 15 .8616 21 (4) 16 .8707 21 (5) * 2005 - Leon Jackson isn't on 247's list but was a 4* on Rivals * 2006 - Major Culbert doesn't show a rating on 247 but was a high 3* on Rivals * 2007 - Armando Murillo (JUCO) not included in 247's list * 2010 - Stanley Jean-Baptiste and Chase Harper (JUCOs) not included in 247's rankings Nice! If I get a chance, I'll redo the chart with these stats overlaid. Think you asked for old links to recruiting rankings. They are findable here: 1998 - ~15th per this link 1999 - 15th on Rivals per this link 2000 - 10th on Rivals per this link 2001 - 10th on Rivals per this link 2002 - you have those 2003 - you have those Note that on 2004, there's a link to a story about how NU was ranked 14th on Rivals at the time Frank was fired. The link is dead, but I'm sure others who were following back then can confirm (or we could look to the OWH archives for the story). Also note that Rivals had the '04 class finish at 58th. Oddly, the 247 ranking was 21st that year, but the other major recruiting sites were all much lower (58th as mentioned and Scout was at 38th). I thought 247 was an aggregation of the rankings; if so, how did that work out? 2 Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Recruiting is over-hyped. Absolutely no argument there. But signing a high-profile recruit with an NFL superstar/USC legacy father is nothing but good at this particular moment, on this particular board. But go ahead and crab away, Capt. von Crabbypants. 1 Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Recruiting is over-hyped. Absolutely no argument there. But signing a high-profile recruit with an NFL superstar/USC legacy father is nothing but good at this particular moment, on this particular board. But go ahead and crab away, Capt. von Crabbypants. Of course it's good. And I challenge you to point out where I said it wasn't. It's as though you read whatever you want posts and then respond. 2 Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Recruiting is over-hyped. Absolutely no argument there. But signing a high-profile recruit with an NFL superstar/USC legacy father is nothing but good at this particular moment, on this particular board. But go ahead and crab away, Capt. von Crabbypants. Of course it's good. And I challenge you to point out where I said it wasn't. It's as though you read whatever you want posts and then respond. Seriously? You are honestly going to pretend that you didn't come in here and sh#t on even this tiny sliver of potential good news for the Cornhuskers of Mike Riley? This was your first post, Chief: The hype around this recruit is approaching epic proportions. As is this renewed focus on recruiting California, which ended up being a misguided approach under Callahan. btw....nobody has misread your posts or intentions since you joined us here at HuskerBoard. 5 Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The hype is insane. Doesn't mean he's not a great prospect or that he's not a great addition for a number of reasons. I just hate to see anther kid being set up to fail/disappoint. I do think the idea of becoming Calabassas U is misguided. We've seen it before and building NU's foundation with recruits from 2000 miles away is not a great idea, even though individually they can be great contributors. 2 Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The hype is insane. Doesn't mean he's not a great prospect or that he's not a great addition for a number of reasons. I just hate to see anther kid being set up to fail/disappoint. I do think the idea of becoming Calabassas U is misguided. We've seen it before and building NU's foundation with recruits from 2000 miles away is not a great idea, even though individually they can be great contributors. It wasn't a great idea for Callahan. That doesn't mean it won't work for Riley. 1 Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 The hype is insane. Doesn't mean he's not a great prospect or that he's not a great addition for a number of reasons. I just hate to see anther kid being set up to fail/disappoint. I do think the idea of becoming Calabassas U is misguided. We've seen it before and building NU's foundation with recruits from 2000 miles away is not a great idea, even though individually they can be great contributors. It wasn't a great idea for Callahan. That doesn't mean it won't work for Riley. True. But I doubt odds weigh in favor of attrition rates changing in a meaningful way. 2 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.