Actually, he wasn't at ND when those classes were recruited. When he was at ND the classes were 25th and worse. Again, not a slam on him, just communicating the facts I understand them. Correct, Banker didn't recruit the classes at Nebraska ... but in the rankings discussed above where folks use the stats he did recruit the players for the defense that then ranked bad at OSU, again, as I understand it.One thing to consider: Diaco had an active hand in recruiting his classes, where Banker did not.Question, if we are going use stats on defensive ranks then don't we also need to add in the recruiting rankings for the 3-4 years prior.
Granted, Bankers defense rank was stinking terrible. I'd just be curious how the recruiting rankings were for each year.
The same goes for Diaco. I'd love my chances with the #4, 1, 6 and 15th ranked classes to them get to use the stats to say how awesome of a DC I am.
Even at Nebraska, Banker had average classes and several key defensive personnel leave and go to NFL.
I'm not for Banker ... and I'm not against Diaco. It all goes back to " statistics don't lie, people do." I'm not implying anyone is lying. It's just how stats are used to debate the point.
My guess is Banker had worse recruiting classes who performed a bit worse then ranking and Diaco had better recruiting rankings who performed worse then their ranking but better then Bankers on the average.
Where are you getting the classes were 25th or worse? According to Rivals 2010 - #14, 2011 - #10, 2012 - #20 and 2013 - #3. According to 247 its 10 - #16, 11 - #9, 12 - #18 and 13 - #5. These are just the rankings as I understand them.Actually, he wasn't at ND when those classes were recruited. When he was at ND the classes were 25th and worse. Again, not a slam on him, just communicating the facts I understand them. Correct, Banker didn't recruit the classes at Nebraska ... but in the rankings discussed above where folks use the stats he did recruit the players for the defense that then ranked bad at OSU, again, as I understand it.One thing to consider: Diaco had an active hand in recruiting his classes, where Banker did not.Question, if we are going use stats on defensive ranks then don't we also need to add in the recruiting rankings for the 3-4 years prior.
Granted, Bankers defense rank was stinking terrible. I'd just be curious how the recruiting rankings were for each year.
The same goes for Diaco. I'd love my chances with the #4, 1, 6 and 15th ranked classes to them get to use the stats to say how awesome of a DC I am.
Even at Nebraska, Banker had average classes and several key defensive personnel leave and go to NFL.
I'm not for Banker ... and I'm not against Diaco. It all goes back to " statistics don't lie, people do." I'm not implying anyone is lying. It's just how stats are used to debate the point.
My guess is Banker had worse recruiting classes who performed a bit worse then ranking and Diaco had better recruiting rankings who performed worse then their ranking but better then Bankers on the average.
I'll tell you what, that quote makes him sound Jon Gruden, man. That's big time.Good Listen:
I was thinking of starting a new thread with this, but decided against it. Mods, you can split this off if you want....
I found an article from the Connecticut Post from three years ago that is a collection of stories from his teammates at Iowa. It's a great read, and Ill provide a few quotes. Here's the article:
http://www.ctpost.com/uconn/article/Kevin-Duffy-Iowa-teammates-remember-Bobby-5678927.php
Also, he led Iowa in Tackles in 1994 and 1995, with 334 career tackles. He was two-time all Big Ten, and team MVP in 1995.
![]()