Yup. The only reason we've "sucked" at recruiting is because we just aren't trying. It has absolutely nothing to do with the number of athletes that live near Lincoln, Nebraska. Ohio and Alabama are in identical situations to us as far as that's concernderp.
Correct.
Callahan's 2005 recruiting class (5th ranked nationally) that included Ndamukong Suh, proved that once and for all.
Location means nothing.
We hashed this out a couple of weeks ago so this is my last comment on this.
A distribution analysis from 2008-2013 shows which states, out of 42, have the highest percentage of division one football recruits.
The top six, in order, were Texas, Florida, California, Georgia, Ohio and Alabama. Nebraska came in the bottom four at #38.
I don't think it is in any way factual to state location has absolutely nothing to do with recruiting. It's just simply not true. Now, you could argue that there has been a lack of effort, if you want. But, I think location has more of an impact than you give it credit for.
For example, I've heard several local recruiting analysts go on record talking about how difficult it can sometimes be to get recruits on Nebraska's campus during the fall for official visits. If they live really far way, it can be very challenging for them to play a game Friday night, travel to Nebraska on Saturday and get back home in time to do everything else before they have to be back in class Monday. Is this a rampant issue? Perhaps not. But, it's certainly one of concern.
----------
One more note: of the current 2016 class rankings, 19 of the top 25 schools are located in the Top 10 most fertile recruiting states in the country. I don't know how that can be equated to those schools simply trying harder than the rest.