ESPN: Nebraska's recruiting success in California is only getting started

[Saunders]

 

 

 

So I never really care about class rankings etc, but where is Nebraska sitting right now? My curiosity has been peaked by the big gets as of late.

 

25th per Rivals. 10th per the average score rankings. 28th per 247.

 

I think this class has a chance to finish on par with the 2011 class. Maybe even a bit higher, but going to be hard to get into the top 10 barring something crazy happening.

 

I say this while noting that I don't think the recruiting rankings are as important as people have recently espoused. I'll be quite happy if NU can be consistently between 15 and 35 in the rankings.

 

While rankings aren't gospel, they're a pretty good predictor of success. While it's possible to win if you recruit outside of the top 25, it's been proven over the last 10+ years that you are more likely to win big if you recruit top 15-20 classes each year.

 

IIRC, every single national champion in the last 10 years has recruited a Top 10 class prior to the year they won the national title. Most of the players of course don't see the field in their first season, but it's more or less an indicator that those programs likely recruit well regularly.

 

Nebraska will likely never be a Top 10 recruiter year in and year out, but I think being in the 15-25 is an ideal goal every year, with the chance they they could squeeze into the Top 10.

 

I think consistently recruiting outside of the Top 25 means you can still win and be successful, like you said, but you have to make up for the lack of talent in other areas like culture, coaching, S&C, etc.

 

Yup, that's exactly what the numbers say.

[BigRedBuster]

I am absolutely loving the recruiting we have going on right now.

But, the issues with the recruiting schedule and being able to get kids on campus still remains. There are major issues that need to be changed.

We are having this current success because Riley is very well respected in California and because of Keshawn Johnson Senior. That relationship is what has created this pipeline we are witnessing from California.

 

Do we see that same ability to get kids here for the Spring game from Texas?? Florida??? Georgia??? no. It was just pointed out in another thread that to get a recruit here that would fly out of Baltimore to Omaha, it would cost him close to $700 just in airfare. Sorry, there are a ton of great football players that can't afford that. So, instead they go see their local program that happens to be really good too.

 

Enjoy what is happening, but it doesn't change the overall situation Nebraska is in as far as location and the recruiting rules.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think what CM keeps saying is that if you choose to run a very specialized offensive scheme, you can cherry pick farther down the recruiting rankings and possibly get more out of less.

 

There's some truth to that.

 

It's also a pretty big risk these days. You'll still need damn good players, especially if you're tipping your hand to every defense.

 

Also, you'll still be competing for the same defensive recruits.

[cm husker]

I think both of the last two posts are accurate.

 

Only thing I'd reply to is the thing about defensive recruits. There are lots of athletes who can be made into adequate defenders. I think it's harder to find OL who can excel in pass pro and harder to find and develop a pro style QB who can be a real weapon (game changer), which is what I think every good college offense requires at the position.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Yeah, but it gets hard to recruit top offensive linemen if the four years of hard work will not be preparing them for NFL careers.

 

Nebraska has been all about the college game, and I get that, but a college specific offense can sometimes hamstring itself.

 

And it's not like high school teams don't pass the ball. If all you can do is get forward push, maybe some left sweep pull, you might not be the athlete you need to be even in college.

[krc1995]

Seems like we're giving a big middle finger to Texas.

[The Dude]

So I never really care about class rankings etc, but where is Nebraska sitting right now? My curiosity has been peaked by the big gets as of late.

 

For future reference just look at the 247sports composite rankings. It's not perfect, but they at least try to make it as unbiased as possible.

[cm husker]

Yeah, but it gets hard to recruit top offensive linemen if the four years of hard work will not be preparing them for NFL careers.

 

Nebraska has been all about the college game, and I get that, but a college specific offense can sometimes hamstring itself.

 

And it's not like high school teams don't pass the ball. If all you can do is get forward push, maybe some left sweep pull, you might not be the athlete you need to be even in college.

 

Productivity is the key over draft picks, which is why I've long argued that the X&O's are actually more important than the Jimmies and Joes (though having both is ideal).

 

I'd need some research, but I wouldn't be surprised if the top 10 offenses in the country each year during the past 4 years didn't actually have a ton of OL drafted from a % perspective. For example, Baylor has had only 2 linemen drafted during the past 4 years (one 4th and one 5th rounder, and neither were particularly highly touted recruits).

[cm husker]

 

So I never really care about class rankings etc, but where is Nebraska sitting right now? My curiosity has been peaked by the big gets as of late.

For future reference just look at the 247sports composite rankings. It's not perfect, but they at least try to make it as unbiased as possible.

 

 

I used to agree with this because I thought they were aggregators, but now it appears they are doing their own things and I've noticed some odd discrepancies in how they rank.

 

None are particularly good because they are run by reporters and marketing majors, not actual football coaches or even former players.

[cm husker]

Seems like we're giving a big middle finger to Texas.

 

I don't think that's entirely fair. The fact is that all of recruiting is really about relationships, so you should absolutely go where you have relationships. My only question is what efforts are being made to develop relationships in the B10 region. I'm sure there are efforts; would just be interesting to get some specific insights.

[ScottyIce]

 

Seems like we're giving a big middle finger to Texas.

 

I don't think that's entirely fair. The fact is that all of recruiting is really about relationships, so you should absolutely go where you have relationships. My only question is what efforts are being made to develop relationships in the B10 region. I'm sure there are efforts; would just be interesting to get some specific insights.

 

 

YOU MEAN YOU HAVEN'T HEARD YET!?

[Enhance]

 

Yeah, but it gets hard to recruit top offensive linemen if the four years of hard work will not be preparing them for NFL careers.

 

Nebraska has been all about the college game, and I get that, but a college specific offense can sometimes hamstring itself.

 

And it's not like high school teams don't pass the ball. If all you can do is get forward push, maybe some left sweep pull, you might not be the athlete you need to be even in college.

 

Productivity is the key over draft picks, which is why I've long argued that the X&O's are actually more important than the Jimmies and Joes (though having both is ideal).

 

I'd need some research, but I wouldn't be surprised if the top 10 offenses in the country each year during the past 4 years didn't actually have a ton of OL drafted from a % perspective. For example, Baylor has had only 2 linemen drafted during the past 4 years (one 4th and one 5th rounder, and neither were particularly highly touted recruits).

 

I'd be interested in seeing that information, too. I did a quick check, and of the 25 or so offensive linemen prospects for this year's draft, about 4-5 come from schools that produced top 10 offenses. So, about 1/5 (again, this may not be 100% accurate as this was a very quick check If anything, my estimate is conservative). This also doesn't go back 4-5 years.

 

But, offensive line is also a huge pool to choose from. Excluding how many are actual draft eligible, there are about 600 starting offensive linemen in division one football every year. That's much higher than the available RB or QB pools, for example.

[cm husker]

 

 

Yeah, but it gets hard to recruit top offensive linemen if the four years of hard work will not be preparing them for NFL careers.

 

Nebraska has been all about the college game, and I get that, but a college specific offense can sometimes hamstring itself.

 

And it's not like high school teams don't pass the ball. If all you can do is get forward push, maybe some left sweep pull, you might not be the athlete you need to be even in college.

 

Productivity is the key over draft picks, which is why I've long argued that the X&O's are actually more important than the Jimmies and Joes (though having both is ideal).

 

I'd need some research, but I wouldn't be surprised if the top 10 offenses in the country each year during the past 4 years didn't actually have a ton of OL drafted from a % perspective. For example, Baylor has had only 2 linemen drafted during the past 4 years (one 4th and one 5th rounder, and neither were particularly highly touted recruits).

 

I'd be interested in seeing that information, too. I did a quick check, and of the 25 or so offensive linemen prospects for this year's draft, about 4-5 come from schools that produced top 10 offenses. So, about 1/5 (again, this may not be 100% accurate as this was a very quick check If anything, my estimate is conservative). This also doesn't go back 4-5 years.

 

But, offensive line is also a huge pool to choose from. Excluding how many are actual draft eligible, there are about 600 starting offensive linemen in division one football every year. That's much higher than the available RB or QB pools, for example.

 

 

That's a much smarter/quicker methodology than I was thinking and probably better proximates the importance of NFL talent versus productivity.

 

To the second paragraph, it'd be interesting to see the % among top offenses that produced NFL RBs and QBs. You didn't mean excluding, though, did you? I'd guess that there are probably 260 draft eligible linemen ever year (pretty much a pure guess, but I'd think 2 senior starters across D1 plus a handful of guys from the other divisions.

[Saunders]

 

 

So I never really care about class rankings etc, but where is Nebraska sitting right now? My curiosity has been peaked by the big gets as of late.

For future reference just look at the 247sports composite rankings. It's not perfect, but they at least try to make it as unbiased as possible.

 

 

I used to agree with this because I thought they were aggregators, but now it appears they are doing their own things and I've noticed some odd discrepancies in how they rank.

 

None are particularly good because they are run by reporters and marketing majors, not actual football coaches or even former players.

 

247 has it's own ranking system, and the "composite" rankings which are the aggregate.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Pro scouts aren't stupid. They can zoom in on a superior talent who anchors a mediocre offensive line.

 

Whereas a cohesive offensive line made up of less-stellar recruits will produce better overall results.

 

They still have to be damn good. They just don't have to be 4/5 star guys.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with being deep in exceptional talent.