2011 Offers

[kchusker_chris]

As I watch Nexus, Street and others post 10-15 new recruits a week with NU offers...I started to wonder where we sat in comparison to other Big12 schools and their offer lists. The below counts are from Rivals, so before you -1 me or lecture me on the accuracy of their data - understand that I know these numbers aren't perfect...I'm just counting on them being equally inaccurate accross the board...and if you want to spend 30 hours gathering something you consider more accurate feel free and I'll update the list. Also don't take this as me demeaning the staffs recruiting abilities. That's not even close to what I'm trying to do. It's just a down time in sports, NU football in particular so when seeing the new posts I got to thinking that...

..it seems to me that we are offering A LOT of kids. In 2010 we put out 45% more offers than the average Big12 school. Before you go telling me that doesn't matter, consider how much time is put into identifying each one of these kids, evaluating film, interviewing the kid, talking with coaches, reviewing transcripts, etc, etc, etc. Lets say it takes 10 hours of work per kid we offer to do all the "pre-offer" work. That means we spend about 600 extra hours more than other schools on recruiting in a cycle. Then assume that there are texts, follow up calls, emails, letters, visits, trips, etc, etc, etc. I am sure juggling 193 kids last year was MUCH more difficult than A&M managing their 96 offers. And, if you think that when a kid accepts another schools' offer the staff writes them off, you don't have to go any farther than Simek, Carnes or Fulton to know that this staff continues to put in time after that committment.

Is there anything wrong w/ that? Not really. But if you consider Bo the CEO of the football team, it seems from this perspective that his efficiency in recruiting is sub-par. There's more strain on the staff and risks present themselves that wouldn't normally be there. Lets assume we have a top 5 team this year and make a BCS bowl. Maybe Crick ends up an All-American and takes home the Outland. If we have 175+ offers floating out there, and those kids see Nebraska is definately back, and further take note of Bo's ability to transfer D-linement from CF to the NFL...we're going to have people committing left and right. Those that aren't sure a spot will be saved for them will pull the trigger early, possibly shutting the door on a better recruit. We have offers out to 9 OL with 3 committed. If 2 more committ do we say no to Westerman? Not a chance...but that also means we "sort of" wasted a scholarship on an OL that probably won't see the field, or will at least have a much harder time breaking out.

2011 Offers

Texas Tech - 70

Baylor - 60

Nebraska - 55

Oklahoma - 48

Kansas - 42

Colorado - 40

Oklahoma St - 39

Texas A&M - 38

K-State - 38

Missouri - 32

Texas - 28

Iowa St - 14

2010 Offers

Nebraska - 193

Kansas - 181

Colorado - 178

K-State - 148

Iowa St - 145

Texas Tech - 133

Oklahoma St - 132

Baylor - 131

Oklahoma - 119

Missouri - 116

Texas A&M - 96

Texas - 33

Just a thought, I know there are a lot of ways to look at it. But if you consider just purely the efficiency behind recruiting - the committment we make, and time spent on each recruit can increase dramatically if we are able to narrow our list. Perhaps we'd do better than the 10% commit-offer in 2010 if we didn't have to spread ourselves so thin. Ultimately it would also allow the staff to better identify the EXACT players we need, and maybe add some longevity to their tenure. Kind of a stretch I know, but I'm bored.

 

[TheCheshireCat]

We have to offer more because we don't have as much leverage as a school like Texas does. 33 offers in 2010 - that's because they are able to take only the best of the best. We are not at that level now and probably will never be on par with Texas in recruiting. When you're at a natural disadvantage you have to put in more work, it's as simple as that. Keep in mind we're also on year 2 (now into year 3) of our head coach. The more we win and the better we do, the easier it will be to recruit.

 

[kchusker_chris]

We have to offer more because we don't have as much leverage as a school like Texas does. 33 offers in 2010 - that's because they are able to take only the best of the best. We are not at that level now and probably will never be on par with Texas in recruiting. When you're at a natural disadvantage you have to put in more work, it's as simple as that. Keep in mind we're also on year 2 (now into year 3) of our head coach. The more we win and the better we do, the easier it will be to recruit.

But are we at that much of a disadvantage over A&M, Tech, Baylor (yes I know all Texas school), Missiouri, Ok St? Just seems overall we should be more in line w/ some of those. Texas is certainly the outlier on the low-end, I just didn't think Nebraska would be the outlier on the other end.

 

[dylan]

We have to offer more because we don't have as much leverage as a school like Texas does. 33 offers in 2010 - that's because they are able to take only the best of the best. We are not at that level now and probably will never be on par with Texas in recruiting. When you're at a natural disadvantage you have to put in more work, it's as simple as that. Keep in mind we're also on year 2 (now into year 3) of our head coach. The more we win and the better we do, the easier it will be to recruit.

bingo. we have severe recruiting disadvantages, starting with the primary one that there just aren't that many recruits within reasonable driving distance. to battle that, we have to work harder. part of that is starting with a bigger pool of candidates so we can locate more kids willing to overlook the distance.

it has always been the case that you have to work harder to recruit to NU. it's one of the main reasons osborne was so successful. of course, these obstacles are lessened by being able to wave an elite tradition of winning. luckily pelini seems to be getting that trump card back.

also, i think an estimate of 10 hours per offer is a little high. keep in mind that not all of the kids we offer are likely to get the full examination or even continue to be recruited by us. i'm guessing the early coaches' rankings from game tape are combined with phone calls to HS coaches and recruits and those that pass the early smell test (and show at least a minimum of interest) are then looked into further via visits to their school, etc. obviously getting kids into summer camps helps us vet them further as well.

as to the issue of too many kids committing, it all comes down to offering only kids that meet a certain baseline of talent that you are willing to accept. you then make it clear that you will accept a certain number and it's first come first serve. of course, there are always a handful of kids each year that you'll take no matter what and those are the ones that sometimes force hard decisions (for instance, us passing on the OL from texas until late because we were hoping to land owa with the last 'ship).

 

[TheCheshireCat]

We have to offer more because we don't have as much leverage as a school like Texas does. 33 offers in 2010 - that's because they are able to take only the best of the best. We are not at that level now and probably will never be on par with Texas in recruiting. When you're at a natural disadvantage you have to put in more work, it's as simple as that. Keep in mind we're also on year 2 (now into year 3) of our head coach. The more we win and the better we do, the easier it will be to recruit.

But are we at that much of a disadvantage over A&M, Tech, Baylor (yes I know all Texas school), Missiouri, Ok St? Just seems overall we should be more in line w/ some of those. Texas is certainly the outlier on the low-end, I just didn't think Nebraska would be the outlier on the other end.

Yes and no. We have a bigger winning tradition and more prestige than everyone on that list and as much as Texas does. In that category we should have better recruiting and get better talent than schools like Baylor and Tech. However, in terms of location and talent-rich areas in proximity, not only are we among the worst in the division but probably in the nation as well. All Texas schools can pull from Texas. Even Colorado has Denver just 15 minutes away. We have a very limited pool to choose from locally and so we have to work harder to pull kids in.

Either way, we are starting to get better talent as time goes on. You can't blame kids for not jumping on Pelini's bandwagon right away, he's still relatively unproven. But the way our team fought last year on the national state and the way Suh shines in the spotlight can only help us and have helped us. As we continue to win I have no doubt we'll be in the running for more top talent. We will always have to work harder than the next guy, but that's not necessarily always a bad thing. It shows our commitment and our ability to take kids from all over and turn them into something great. We still have more overall talent than 90% of schools anyway. We were in the running with Owa for instance this year when I guarantee he wouldn't have considered us the year before had he been in that class. We're making progress and already have the commitment and interest of top players for 2011. And the icing on the cake is so far, Pelini has shown a great knack for spotting talent he can develop. See Dejon Gomes, a 3 star JuCo player that was critical in several victories last season. We are only going up.