Jump to content


Do we need top 5 classes to be successful?


Recommended Posts

A lot of the people complaining about players skipping bowls would do the same in their shoes, even if they don’t realize it themselves.

 

A lot of these players came from really poor families and they see the NFL as their lottery ticket. I think for most of us it would be a lottery ticket. Most kids skipping the bowl seem to be higher round draft picks. Taking a chance at blowing the whole deal for one game the NFL scouts don’t really care about doesn’t make sense. I’m guessing even the 2nd rounders make more than most people make in 10 years but I don’t know the numbers. 

 

I believe someone asked why they don’t skip the regular season, too. They have to put something on film for the NFL. If they know they don’t have much to gain from one last game then they may as well skip it. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

I believe someone asked why they don’t skip the regular season, too. 

 

 

They would if the NFL wasn't unfairly using the NCAA as a farming/minor league system. If there was a true minor league system for football, a lot of these players would be skipping the college football regular season and would go play pro/semi-pro ball right out of high school. And everyone would be better for it imo.

 

Link to comment

You can compete for national titles without top 5 classes.  Its the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg.  Offers from certain schools will make a players rating go up.  10 years ago, no one cared about who Clemson was recruiting and they were 36th in the nation (although they did snag Tajh Boyd that year), and now they are 5th i the nation. As this staff proves that it evaluates talent well, you will see an increase in our ratings. We will still be bringing in the exact same type of player, but because of clout and prestige, we will get hire rankings.  Yes, its dumb.     

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, boach_clack said:

You can compete for national titles without top 5 classes.  Its the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg.  Offers from certain schools will make a players rating go up.  10 years ago, no one cared about who Clemson was recruiting and they were 36th in the nation (although they did snag Tajh Boyd that year), and now they are 5th i the nation. As this staff proves that it evaluates talent well, you will see an increase in our ratings. We will still be bringing in the exact same type of player, but because of clout and prestige, we will get hire rankings.  Yes, its dumb.     

 

 

I’ll repeat what I said before, Nebraska is always ranked #1 in recruiting in the West, even though we don’t win the West. Why aren’t our recruiting rankings dropped and Wisconsin’s or Iowa’s raised above us?

Link to comment

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I’ll repeat what I said before, Nebraska is always ranked #1 in recruiting in the West, even though we don’t win the West. Why aren’t our recruiting rankings dropped and Wisconsin’s or Iowa’s raised above us?

Its still just recruiting, player development has been extremely poor here in the last 8-12 years. I would also say that as badly as Wisky and Iowa want to be bluebloods they just arent.  We are. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I’ll repeat what I said before, Nebraska is always ranked #1 in recruiting in the West, even though we don’t win the West. Why aren’t our recruiting rankings dropped and Wisconsin’s or Iowa’s raised above us?

 

I agree with you, I just had a point related to this.

 

Wisconsin just signed it's second best recruit ever, a 5-star OT.  He's good and probably deserves that rating.  However, I think certain positions at Wisconsin and Iowa (OL and LB, RB to some extent) get a slight ratings boost because of their continued success with them.

 

It is also worth noting that Purdue and Wisconsin were very close to Nebraska in the recruiting rankings this year.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Husker in WI said:

 

How are high school state championships and sitting out bowl games even remotely  related? We're assuming the guys in a position to sit out their last college bowl game didn't win state championships as high schoolers? I like guys who have won too, but it's not like every great player was on a great high school team. Adam Carriker won like 3 games in his entire high school career, and I'm sure there are other examples.

 

I don't disagree with the second bold pieces individually, but it seems like you're tying them together. Not all 5 stars are entitled, and while they don't guarantee anything higher rated signees are correlated with championship-level success much more than walk-ons. Walk-ons are important, and both Clemson and Bama have had walk-ons contribute. But they didn't get to where they are without a lot of really talented kids, and that's been a much bigger part of their success. The main argument for the importance of walk-ons is the effort they give, and you can also get a lot of that with competition. Five star kids can't stay complacent if another five star comes in every year to take their place.

 

The first emboldened statement are representative comments to make a point.  We do not need top 5 recruiting years to be a top 5 powerhouse.  Entitled 5 stars can kill a culture.  Bought-in, developed .88 kids can win multiple rings.  I'm not saying all five stars are culture killers and sit out bowls; that statement would be as exaggerative as I believe stating you need a top 5 class to succeed in today's CF landscape

Link to comment

7 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

 

The first emboldened statement are representative comments to make a point.  We do not need top 5 recruiting years to be a top 5 powerhouse.  Entitled 5 stars can kill a culture.  Bought-in, developed .88 kids can win multiple rings.  I'm not saying all five stars are culture killers and sit out bowls; that statement would be as exaggerative as I believe stating you need a top 5 class to succeed in today's CF landscape

You may not need a top 5 class to succeed in college football based on whatever you may deem successful

 

You do not need a top 5 class to compete for a national championship.  The last 20 years shows you need a top 15 to hopefully play for one and you need a top 10 or better to win one.

 

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Please tell me you're talking about the '97 Nebraska team, and not the imaginary national championship UCF claims.... Because, even Frost himself would tell you he wasn't.

 

4 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

How many HC's have won a NC as a player?

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...