Do we need top 5 classes to be successful?

Nebraska needs to recruit a lot better than it has in the bcs era. Sure things like improved strength and conditioning will help but I'm guessing schools like Ohio state, Michigan and Penn state have that to. 

If Nebraska continues to not crack at the very least the top 15 consistently i don't think it will be enough. Scheme, toughness and walk ons can only get you so far if you go up against an ohio state team loaded with nfl talent that also has a great strength and conditioning program.

 
husker_fan_from_sweden said:
I'll refer you to the title of the topic and the lead up to Toms pinnacle years weren't always top 10-15. It isn't an end all be all requirement to be at the top.
Click to expand...




Which is more relevant and a better predictor of success for 2019 and onwards - what Tom Osborne did at this school 25 years ago, or what the data shows is common between all championship schools in the present era?

 
Xmas32 said:
I don't think you need top 5 classes (which I don't think is possible at Nebraska without an outlier in in-state talent) under your definition of success.  I think the current trajectory of recruiting will be sufficient. 

Now, for funsies if you're talking national championships, history shows that you need to average a top 10 class for 4 years up to the national championship which 11 of the past 14 teams have done.  Now, the good news for Nebraska is two of the three outliers had generational talents at QB (2010 Auburn w/ Cam Newton and 2016 Clemson w/ Deshaun Watson) if you think 2AM has that potential (and I happen to think he is) than you've got yourself a fighting chance but you still need to probably average in the 15ish range.  2003 LSU is the other outlier and they averaged 12th...however 2 of the years they had a class ranked 2nd and 3rd.

I took most of my info from this article...

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/history-shows-national-titles-require-great-not-just-good-recruiting-over-4-years/
Click to expand...
SB Nation does a lot of the same as it relates to blue chip ration ie 50% or more 4*-5* kids to win MNC.  As you mentioned, the outliers with top 10 classes have been schools who had a play maker at QB.  IMHO, we start to win, recruiting success will increase. A team is not going to win the MNC without talent.  However, development/scheme/system can possibly make consistently top 20 classes into winners.  I still think you need a kid or 3 on both sides of the ball that can change a game to win.  Frost is getting those.  Developmental success will be seen in year 3 IMHO.  Give Duval time to get kids stronger and the staff to recruit and develop what they are bringing in.

 
BlitzFirst said:
https://sites.google.com/site/nebraskafootballhistory/recruiting

Ranked 10 to 30 actually from 1990 to 1994.
Click to expand...
IMHO, what TO did was an anomaly.  There were also different rules ie scholarship limits, partial qualifiers and parity much greater these days.  Plus, TO was a genius.  In the mold of the greatest to ever coach the game.  If Frost is in that rarified air of the greatest, it's possible we can get there with "lower" rated classes.

 
Landlord said:
Which is more relevant and a better predictor of success for 2019 and onwards - what Tom Osborne did at this school 25 years ago, or what the data shows is common between all championship schools in the present era?
Click to expand...
“I always said at Oregon that if we could combine our scheme and speed there with old-fashioned Husker Power, that we wouldn’t lose a game,”
 

We both don't have to be wrong you know.

 
lo country said:
….There were also different rules ie scholarship limits, partial qualifiers and parity much greater these days..... 
Click to expand...


I've said it before and I'll keep reminding people.

1.  The 85 scholarship limit went into effect in the early '90's, without looking it up, I think 1991.  And some degree of scholarship limit was in effect from the middle 70's.

2.  Yes, Nebraska used partial qualifiers as allowed by the NCAA until the Big 12 was formed and finally the NCAA banned all partials in the late 90's. 

However, nowhere is it written that low level learners or those who blew off their high school studies where automatically better football players. 

3.  Parity did increase but the "good" schools still won more games.

And furthermore, Nebraska was not the only school that had to play by these rules.  Texas, Florida, Miami, all the rest had to only give 85, had to  pass on partials, (if they used them), and parity affected everybody.

 
I think there are three tiers for determining what Nebraska can expect based on recruiting rankings (these should be viewed as rough standards rather than exact requirements):

Top 25+ recruiting: compete in west, occasionally win the division, lower percentage chance at winning B1G

Top 15-24 recruiting: compete in west, regularly win division, moderate-to-good chance at winning B1G

Top 5-14 recruiting: win the west, good chance to win B1G, CFP contender

So far, Clemson has the worst average recruiting ranking over the last five years of any national champion (11.8). All of the others are in the Top 10. I don't think Nebraska is going to sniff hopes at a national title unless they get somewhere in that range.

To the question at hand, 'success' definitely does not require a top 5 class here. Solid recruiting in the 15-25 range will position the team well for conference titles, major bowls and potential CFP appearances (the latter being unlikely unless they can get into the top 15 recruiting realm).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TonyStalloni said:
I was excited when Frost and co decided to take the job at Nebraska.  I thought then and still do that his scheme was going to make up a lot of ground in the BIG 10 that we have ceded to the powers that be in both the west and the east.  On the flip side, scheme will only get you so far against teams with their own great scheme and better athletes. The Ohio States and Michigans and to some degree Penn St's of the world have consistantly signed higher rated classes than we have for many years. We get (have gotten) good athletes while they get great athletes.  We mostly haven't had a defense that can get 3 and outs or get a high volume of turnovers (except the Suh years).I think it will take another 3 to 5 years to get recruiting so we are again a household name for the big time high school players all over the country.  In the meantime we'll have to make gains in recruiting every year, coach them up, get stronger , bigger and faster to win the west then challenge for the CCG.   
Click to expand...


Frost has a lot of confidence in Duvall. The staff believes if they can get in the right attitude fits and developmental kids, Duvall can make them animals. Formula:

1. Have high integrity

2. Love football

3. Be willing to do what it takes to win

4. Length, range, and a baseline of athleticism which can be developed 

5. Mix in some immediate, wow talent to augment gains from previous years. 

The culture has changed. Now get them competing against each other for playing time and PBs in the weight room. 

The future is bright. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is your definition of success given our equation

For me it means:

Fielding teams that compete

play physical football

play disciplined- don’t beat themselves

play confident

arent being outcoached

developing players 

winning games we should win soundly

consistently winning games against teams we have more talent than

winning 65 percent of games when playing teams of equal talent

winning 33  percent of games against teams that have more talent than us

this means consistently winning 8-10 games a year

competing for division titles almost every year

winning the big 2-3 times a decade

and when all the breaks go our way being in the conversation for top 8 1-2 times a decade

with frost and cos ability to identify recruit and develop players

these are reasonable goals and yes they can be achieved with recruiting classes ranked in the 15-20 range which is doable 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OTHusker said:
What is your definition of success given our equation

For me it means:

Fielding teams that compete

play physical football

play disciplined- don’t beat themselves

play confident

arent being outcoached

developing players 

winning games we should win soundly

consistently winning games against teams we have more talent than

winning 65 percent of games when playing teams of equal talent

winning 33  percent of games against teams that have more talent than us

this means consistently winning 8-10 games a year

competing for division titles almost every year

winning the big 2-3 times a decade

and when all the breaks go our way being in the conversation for top 8 1-2 times a decade

with frost and cos ability to identify recruit and develop players

these are reasonable goals and yes they can be achieved with recruiting classes ranked in the 15-20 range which is doable 
Click to expand...
Reading through this, I expect more future success than you outline. 

 
Hey guys, all really really good replies.  I stepped away to see all of this and its a lot of good discussions, and points.

I think, its fair to say this.

1. Miracles can happen, and its possible, though unlikely that Frost and Co. will achieve NC type opportunities 20+ rankings.

2. Nebraska's scheme does put defenses in bad situations, and much like TO pioneered, won with the type of formula the Frost and Co. Is building.   Frost did say that it still applies today, so maybe point #1 isnt as far reaching as we might think.

3. If we can mirror a defense that has the ability to make stops, and not hope for turnover opportunities, we'll be on to something special.

4. Winning does bring better kids into the program, and that could lead to better rankings.

5. Marry Christmas everyone.   Hope it was a wonderful day for all of you.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top