Are you putting those in order of how they actually rank the classes or re-sorting them by average?
I am simply going to the 247 team ranking for last year and looking at their average player rating. So, no it is not sorted by player rating. It's done on the class score like they typically rank their classes.
Doing it that way doesn't really tell you anything because it's a crap shoot depending on how may guys the team that happened to end up in that spot signed.
I took the Top 50 overall rated 2016 classes using the 247 Composite and re-sorted them by average star rating.
The 15th best class was .8870
The 25th best class was .8738
The 35th best class was .8533
So there is a little more drop-off from 25-35 than from 15-25 but not much. Nebraska is #28 using that method, btw.
I tried to do the same for 2015 but including the walk-ons makes a mess of it.
true.
But, one point I wanted to make is towards the people who get all worked up with the fact we have a 25th ranked team compared to 15th. The fact is, there might very well not be much difference in the quality of the recruits between the two. Maybe a school has more scholarships they can give out...etc. which propels them up the rankings.
Fact is, once you get in that range, you have a pretty decent class.
Fact is that is about the class we have been getting. We see how far that has taken us. BRB I think you lead the group in that ol bar lowering deal, spin and spin and spin.
WTH????
Please explain to me the great difference in the quality of players on average in the 25th ranked class compared to the 15th ranked class?
I would suggest a possible explanation for the difference between the observed success that schools with the 'top ten' level rated class recruiting averages and the rest NOT the average of the entire class. Rather, I think it is more then number of 'great' players at the school.
By this I mean to suggest that , for example, while Alabama may have landed the top rated recruiting classes over the past 5 years, for example, which averaged 90.00 while the number the school such as Nebraska averaged number 29 in recruiting classes over the same period (scored @ 84.5), the difference between competing for titles and being where we are is NOT the bottom half of the recruiting classes (perhaps 3 star players for example) it is the number of 4 and 5 stars. I believe the great bulk of the 'great players' are 4 and 5 stars. Alabama likely has 20 'great' players while Nebraska has perhaps 4. That just won't cut it.
I would further submit that if you took away the top 22 players from both Nebraska and Alabama, the remaining difference between players' average ratings would grow further. If you compared Nebraska's athletic 'talent' level in 1995, you would find our third string was better than our starters this year. Frankly, I believe the '95 team was the most talented college football team EVER. Even after 20 years, there have bene no other teams yet to rival the sheer depth and scope of football talent. But, the gap is getting much closer as the Alabamas, Ohio States and other 'elite' programs are gathering tremendous numbers of the very best players. I believe the 'haves' are getting richer and the have nots are getting poorer.
The real risk is that Nebraska is very close to being on the outside looking in for the foreseeable future. The coming 5 years are critical in my view. We must break through and return to the top 10 probrams in that time or we likely won't ever get there again. An entire generation will have passed since our program was in fact elite. Far too many young people will not have any real idea of the Husker history, greatness and mystic.
