How long is going to take for us to make a recruiting splash?

[kchusker_chris]

SI.com did an article not long ago about the best recruiting classes of all time.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/01/29/best-classes/2.html

Kind of a good read...

IMO - Top 20 classes will get us to a BCS game w/ Bo at the helm. A top 5-10 every 3 years or so and we'll consistently be in the hunt for a MNC. The difference between a team w/ consistent top 5 classes (Alabama/Texas) and a team with consistent top-25 classes (Nebraska) (assuming even coaching ability accross the board) is games like 2010 Iowa St/Texas Tech. When you have a lack of top end talent at even 2-3 positions, every once in a while you are going to get bit in the a$$ - and often it's quite a suprise at how it happened. You rarely see Texas losing a game they should have won, or Alabama involved in a complete debacle of a football game. You can win 10 a year w/ Top 25 classes - make a BSC game or 2 every decade...but consistency will be more difficult to come by.

It's certainly true that Rival's misses on a number of individual players - but overall the class rankings do trend w/ the AP rankings. Class rankings are a good indicator of "potential" - after that it's coaching. No one can argue Notre Dames' classes have been completely full of potential - that's all Rivals can rank. If they added a "the coach sucks" component (ND) or a "creampuff schedule" (Boise St.) to their rankings then I'm sure the order would shift.

 

[74Hunter]

The myth of Osborne not having top classes is just that, a myth. His classes were never top 1 or 2. But he consistantly finished anywhere from 8-25. I think 3rd might have been the best he did. Dont quote me on that. IIRC that was what it was.

i'm pretty sure at least one, and probably a couple, were considered at the time to be the top class in the nation.

I don't know about the 80's, but our recruiting rankings from 1990-1997 were 10th, 28th, 14th, 18th, 20th, 8th, 6th, and 19th according to SuperPrep. The majority of players from the domininant '95 team were from classes ranked 28th, 14th, 18th, and 20th. Now that was a different world in terms of recruiting coverage than it is today, so it's probably not like comparing apples to apples.

This brings me to EZ-E's post about Osborne's top recruiting classes being a myth. 8-25 is quite the range, and there is a significant on paper difference between the high and low. If 20-25 is a top recruiting class, I think Bo will meet or exceed this in most years. If the mark is 1-15, TO was batting .500 for the time period that I posted. It remains to be seen if Bo can match this in the long term.

fwiw, i've heard before of at least one top ranked class from the 80's. i think the 87 class with mickey joseph and nate turner was one, but am not certain. just did a search and saw where one husker site lists the 1985 NU class as having been emfinger's #1 recruiting class. in general, i think too many people have the idea that osborne won all those games with "blue collar" walk-ons. he knew the importance of getting difference makers and worked as hard as anyone at recruiting. he just went about it the right way.

fwiw, TO may have only had the top ranked class once or twice, but I don't think anyone is saying that he didn't have talent. During the late 80's and early 90's CU usually had a similar or a more highly rated class, but NU normally had better success at that time. Yes, walk-ons added a dimension, possible starters, but they were able to have more than enough players to practice against and they did add a mental toughness to the team. As has been shown TO's classes were usually rated 6-30, but there were things that TO did better than anyone. He picked players that fit his system better and he maximized the players' potential better than other coaches. Look how many All-Americans we had during his time, and look how few of those players ended up being stars at the next level compared to other schools like Miami, tOSU, and Notre Dame.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Look how many All-Americans we had during his time, and look how few of those players ended up being stars at the next level compared to other schools like Miami, tOSU, and Notre Dame.

Interesting point. I think the gap between NFL and college from a "scheme" perspective was greater then, than it is today. Probably not a good measuring stick. Also, we used to put out 2-3 All Americans a year. Of course some of them aren't going to be stars. Steve Taylor, Irving Fryar, Neil Smith, Will Shields, Trev Alberts, Dean Steinkuhler, Dave Rimington, etc made it. Plenty of others in the mid-90's. A lot of them were offensive linemen as well - of course they weren't going to be "stars".

 

[Danimal]

Thus far our classes have been OK but nothing to brag about, IMO this is the class where we turn a corner and start recruiting like a power. Not saying we'll be Texas/USC/'bama but if we evaluate and develop well we'll have the talent to compete with those teams.

 

[AndyDufresne]

Thus far our classes have been OK but nothing to brag about, IMO this is the class where we turn a corner and start recruiting like a power. Not saying we'll be Texas/USC/'bama but if we evaluate and develop well we'll have the talent to compete with those teams.

Averaging the Rivals team rankings for each team from 2008-2010, the results are:

1. Alabama - 2.3

2. USC - 4.3

3. Florida - 5.3

4. LSU - 6.3

5. Texas - 7.3

6t. Florida State - 8.7

6t. Oklahoma - 8.7

8. Georgia - 9.3

9. Ohio State - 10.7

10. UCLA - 11.7

11. Miami - 12.0

12. Notre Dame - 12.3

13. Michigan - 12.7

14. Auburn - 14.3

15. Tennessee - 18.0

16. Texas A&M - 18.3

17. South Carolina - 19.3

18t. Oregon - 21.3

18t. Virginia Tech - 21.3

20. Ole Miss - 21.7

21. Clemson - 22.7

22. North Carolina - 23.3

23. Penn State - 26.3

24. Nebraska - 26.7

IMO, 24th overall is better than okay. I'm not saying it is outstanding, but good or very good seem like more appropriate adjectives than okay.

We'll see how this class ends up, but there are specifics unique to this class that won't be the case every year.

1. We have a commit from a Rivals top 100 OT from Florida, who probably wouldn't have committed if he weren't a legacy.

2. There are two 4 stars in Nebraska this year. This has happened twice since 2004 (2008 and 2011).

3. We are likely the favorite to land a potential 5-star out of Texas. Would we be the favorite if his brother weren't on the team?

I disagree that we will recruit like a power. I think that we are making a step in the right direction though, and while our 2008-2010 classes all fell in the 20-30 range, I believe our future classes will land in the 15-25 range more often than not. I just don't see us with class averages similar to the top 14 teams on the list above.

 

[EZ-E]

Thus far our classes have been OK but nothing to brag about, IMO this is the class where we turn a corner and start recruiting like a power. Not saying we'll be Texas/USC/'bama but if we evaluate and develop well we'll have the talent to compete with those teams.

Averaging the Rivals team rankings for each team from 2008-2010, the results are:

1. Alabama - 2.3

2. USC - 4.3

3. Florida - 5.3

4. LSU - 6.3

5. Texas - 7.3

6t. Florida State - 8.7

6t. Oklahoma - 8.7

8. Georgia - 9.3

9. Ohio State - 10.7

10. UCLA - 11.7

11. Miami - 12.0

12. Notre Dame - 12.3

13. Michigan - 12.7

14. Auburn - 14.3

15. Tennessee - 18.0

16. Texas A&M - 18.3

17. South Carolina - 19.3

18t. Oregon - 21.3

18t. Virginia Tech - 21.3

20. Ole Miss - 21.7

21. Clemson - 22.7

22. North Carolina - 23.3

23. Penn State - 26.3

24. Nebraska - 26.7

IMO, 24th overall is better than okay. I'm not saying it is outstanding, but good or very good seem like more appropriate adjectives than okay.

We'll see how this class ends up, but there are specifics unique to this class that won't be the case every year.

1. We have a commit from a Rivals top 100 OT from Florida, who probably wouldn't have committed if he weren't a legacy.

2. There are two 4 stars in Nebraska this year. This has happened twice since 2004 (2008 and 2011).

3. We are likely the favorite to land a potential 5-star out of Texas. Would we be the favorite if his brother weren't on the team?

I disagree that we will recruit like a power. I think that we are making a step in the right direction though, and while our 2008-2010 classes all fell in the 20-30 range, I believe our future classes will land in the 15-25 range more often than not. I just don't see us with class averages similar to the top 14 teams on the list above.

This is great work Andy. :cheers

I agree with what you said in that we will pull in classes that are in the top 15-25 and every so often pull in a top 5 class.

 

[schuhbdoo]

Thus far our classes have been OK but nothing to brag about, IMO this is the class where we turn a corner and start recruiting like a power. Not saying we'll be Texas/USC/'bama but if we evaluate and develop well we'll have the talent to compete with those teams.

Averaging the Rivals team rankings for each team from 2008-2010, the results are:

1. Alabama - 2.3

2. USC - 4.3

3. Florida - 5.3

4. LSU - 6.3

5. Texas - 7.3

6t. Florida State - 8.7

6t. Oklahoma - 8.7

8. Georgia - 9.3

9. Ohio State - 10.7

10. UCLA - 11.7

11. Miami - 12.0

12. Notre Dame - 12.3

13. Michigan - 12.7

14. Auburn - 14.3

15. Tennessee - 18.0

16. Texas A&M - 18.3

17. South Carolina - 19.3

18t. Oregon - 21.3

18t. Virginia Tech - 21.3

20. Ole Miss - 21.7

21. Clemson - 22.7

22. North Carolina - 23.3

23. Penn State - 26.3

24. Nebraska - 26.7

IMO, 24th overall is better than okay. I'm not saying it is outstanding, but good or very good seem like more appropriate adjectives than okay.

We'll see how this class ends up, but there are specifics unique to this class that won't be the case every year.

1. We have a commit from a Rivals top 100 OT from Florida, who probably wouldn't have committed if he weren't a legacy.

2. There are two 4 stars in Nebraska this year. This has happened twice since 2004 (2008 and 2011).

3. We are likely the favorite to land a potential 5-star out of Texas. Would we be the favorite if his brother weren't on the team?

I disagree that we will recruit like a power. I think that we are making a step in the right direction though, and while our 2008-2010 classes all fell in the 20-30 range, I believe our future classes will land in the 15-25 range more often than not. I just don't see us with class averages similar to the top 14 teams on the list above.

This is great work Andy. :cheers

I agree with what you said in that we will pull in classes that are in the top 15-25 and every so often pull in a top 5 class.

Bo and staff have made a lot of great improvements in recruting but to think they will be able to compete Anyday, Anytime, Anywhere if they produce top 25 classes is not realistic in my opinion.

Look at the list. To be relevant, they need to produce 1-15. The top 25 won't get ur done. Recruiting has turned into a 24/7, 7 day a week job for most of the staff.

To be a top 10 or top 5 school we have go through the top 10 schools. That means we have to be close to them in recruiting, not better or matching but close. Rankings are just rankings to certain extent and are very subjective based on who is doing the rankings, but a 4 star is usually better than a 3 star and a 5 star is always better than a 3.

This staff does a tremendous job with the recruits they sign but I am not happy seeing top 25 in recruiting classes and I bet Bo and staff will get better numbers as they gain positive momentum going forward.

 

[AndyDufresne]

Thus far our classes have been OK but nothing to brag about, IMO this is the class where we turn a corner and start recruiting like a power. Not saying we'll be Texas/USC/'bama but if we evaluate and develop well we'll have the talent to compete with those teams.

Averaging the Rivals team rankings for each team from 2008-2010, the results are:

1. Alabama - 2.3

2. USC - 4.3

3. Florida - 5.3

4. LSU - 6.3

5. Texas - 7.3

6t. Florida State - 8.7

6t. Oklahoma - 8.7

8. Georgia - 9.3

9. Ohio State - 10.7

10. UCLA - 11.7

11. Miami - 12.0

12. Notre Dame - 12.3

13. Michigan - 12.7

14. Auburn - 14.3

15. Tennessee - 18.0

16. Texas A&M - 18.3

17. South Carolina - 19.3

18t. Oregon - 21.3

18t. Virginia Tech - 21.3

20. Ole Miss - 21.7

21. Clemson - 22.7

22. North Carolina - 23.3

23. Penn State - 26.3

24. Nebraska - 26.7

IMO, 24th overall is better than okay. I'm not saying it is outstanding, but good or very good seem like more appropriate adjectives than okay.

We'll see how this class ends up, but there are specifics unique to this class that won't be the case every year.

1. We have a commit from a Rivals top 100 OT from Florida, who probably wouldn't have committed if he weren't a legacy.

2. There are two 4 stars in Nebraska this year. This has happened twice since 2004 (2008 and 2011).

3. We are likely the favorite to land a potential 5-star out of Texas. Would we be the favorite if his brother weren't on the team?

I disagree that we will recruit like a power. I think that we are making a step in the right direction though, and while our 2008-2010 classes all fell in the 20-30 range, I believe our future classes will land in the 15-25 range more often than not. I just don't see us with class averages similar to the top 14 teams on the list above.

This is great work Andy. :cheers

I agree with what you said in that we will pull in classes that are in the top 15-25 and every so often pull in a top 5 class.

Bo and staff have made a lot of great improvements in recruting but to think they will be able to compete Anyday, Anytime, Anywhere if they produce top 25 classes is not realistic in my opinion.

Look at the list. To be relevant, they need to produce 1-15. The top 25 won't get ur done. Recruiting has turned into a 24/7, 7 day a week job for most of the staff.

To be a top 10 or top 5 school we have go through the top 10 schools. That means we have to be close to them in recruiting, not better or matching but close. Rankings are just rankings to certain extent and are very subjective based on who is doing the rankings, but a 4 star is usually better than a 3 star and a 5 star is always better than a 3.

This staff does a tremendous job with the recruits they sign but I am not happy seeing top 25 in recruiting classes and I bet Bo and staff will get better numbers as they gain positive momentum going forward.

A 5 star is always better than a 3? You can't possibly believe that, knowing that Dennard and Amukamara were 3 stars and Andre Jones was a 5 star.

 

[schuhbdoo]

My point is this, I am not going to say that I am satisfied with top 25/26 recruiting classes. If you want to accept 26th place for 2008-2010, you can post that you are ok with it.

I personally believe this staff needs to get better and rank in the top 15. Even though I believe this staff does a great job with the classes the have brought in and who they inherited, they are still ranked in the top 26 per your research.

There are going to be 3 stars that turn out to be great. I am not sold that 2 stars athletes or 3 star athletes are going to better than 4 and 5 star recruits. Those stars are what make up the rankings, so I would like to see us higher than 26.

I am confident that top 15 classes will lead to conference championships, which lead to BCS bowls, which possibly lead to playing for national championships. This is what I believe.

edit:

If you go back 5 years and research the last five BCS national champions, they are listed in the top 5 of your research. (bama, florida(2), lsu, texas)

So the schools winning the hardware are all in the top 5 for the last three years in recruiting.

4 schools, 5 national championships and all are in the top 5 in recruiting for the years listed 2008 to 2010.

I would like to see Bo with top 15 classes or better.

 

[T-Husker]

My point is this, I am not going to say that I am satisfied with top 25/26 recruiting classes. If you want to accept 26th place for 2008-2010, you can post that you are ok with it.

I personally believe this staff needs to get better and rank in the top 15. Even though I believe this staff does a great job with the classes the have brought in and who they inherited, they are still ranked in the top 26 per your research.

There are going to be 3 stars that turn out to be great. I am not sold that 2 stars athletes or 3 star athletes are going to better than 4 and 5 star recruits. Those stars are what make up the rankings, so I would like to see us higher than 26.

I am confident that top 15 classes will lead to conference championships, which lead to BCS bowls, which possibly lead to playing for national championships. This is what I believe.

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, but BC's top 15 classes didn't lead to any of those things. Conf champ: nope. One chance. BCS bowls: close one time, but nope. Natl Champ: Not even a whiff.

I'm confident in the staffs ability to take lower talent and make them into impact players. There are too many highly ranked studs that fall through the cracks at the college level when making the transition from high school to say that 5 stars are always better than 3's. It just isn't always the case.

I personally believe that top 25 classes can be coached up into contenders when kids work their tails off and believe in the system like it sounds like our players now are doing. We have already seen our players get faster and smarter under Bo through recruiting and flat out coaching.

I really think that the fascination with top 10 recruiting classes resulting in winning championships is just because as fans we always look to the future. It's fun to prognosticate, and when we have a really good recruiting class, we make it into a forecast for how many conf champs, and possible natl champs, we will win the next few years.

It's fun but is it really as much of a factor as coaching. In football, I don't think so. Now in basketball it's a whooole nother story!

 

[AndyDufresne]

My point is this, I am not going to say that I am satisfied with top 25/26 recruiting classes. If you want to accept 26th place for 2008-2010, you can post that you are ok with it.

I personally believe this staff needs to get better and rank in the top 15. Even though I believe this staff does a great job with the classes the have brought in and who they inherited, they are still ranked in the top 26 per your research.

There are going to be 3 stars that turn out to be great. I am not sold that 2 stars athletes or 3 star athletes are going to better than 4 and 5 star recruits. Those stars are what make up the rankings, so I would like to see us higher than 26.

I am confident that top 15 classes will lead to conference championships, which lead to BCS bowls, which possibly lead to playing for national championships. This is what I believe.

Here are my projected starters for this year:

LT - Sirles (3*) or Hardrick (4*)

LG - Williams (3*)

C - Caputo (NR)

RG - Henry (3*)

RT - Jones (3*)

QB - Lee (4*)

RB - Helu (3*) and Burkhead (4*)

WR - Paul (4*)

WR - Kinnie (3*)

WR - McNeill (3*)

TE - Cotton (3*) or Reed (3*)

DE - Meredith (3*)

DE - Allen (3*)

DT - Crick (3*)

DT - Steinkuhler (5*)

LB - Fisher (3*) or Whaley (3*)

LB - Compton (4*) or David (4*)

CB - Amukamara (3*)

CB - Dennard (3*)

S - Gomes (3*)

S - Smith (3*) or Cooper (4*)

PB - Hagg (3*)

We are preseason top 10 by most accounts, and the only two 4 or 5 star recruits not from the 2008-2010 classes are Paul and Lee. Do you believe that we cannot win the conference title this year?

 

[zoogs]

I'm pretty sure that BC only had one Top 15 class, if I'm not mistaken...

schub, I 100% agree with your argument on the stars.

But I disagree with your rankings analysis. To me, perennial Top 10 classes are a big deal. But 15-25, it's a wash. I don't think there's really that significant of a difference between 15 and 25. If we recruit the way we have been, then we are getting the stars. It just comes down to the tiebreakers in the Rivals formulas. Position ranking bonuses and all that. Keep up our recruiting, and we'll get Top 30 consistently, and up in the 15 and under range some years while mostly staying in the 20's.

That's terrific IMO and gets us in the neighborhood to compete. VERY few programs get to be truly Top 15 over an extended period. If we are getting the 15th ranked class every year versus the 25th, I will contend that there's really not much difference there. Not a significant one.

 

[Danimal]

Thus far our classes have been OK but nothing to brag about, IMO this is the class where we turn a corner and start recruiting like a power. Not saying we'll be Texas/USC/'bama but if we evaluate and develop well we'll have the talent to compete with those teams.

Averaging the Rivals team rankings for each team from 2008-2010, the results are:

1. Alabama - 2.3

2. USC - 4.3

3. Florida - 5.3

4. LSU - 6.3

5. Texas - 7.3

6t. Florida State - 8.7

6t. Oklahoma - 8.7

8. Georgia - 9.3

9. Ohio State - 10.7

10. UCLA - 11.7

11. Miami - 12.0

12. Notre Dame - 12.3

13. Michigan - 12.7

14. Auburn - 14.3

15. Tennessee - 18.0

16. Texas A&M - 18.3

17. South Carolina - 19.3

18t. Oregon - 21.3

18t. Virginia Tech - 21.3

20. Ole Miss - 21.7

21. Clemson - 22.7

22. North Carolina - 23.3

23. Penn State - 26.3

24. Nebraska - 26.7

IMO, 24th overall is better than okay. I'm not saying it is outstanding, but good or very good seem like more appropriate adjectives than okay.

We'll see how this class ends up, but there are specifics unique to this class that won't be the case every year.

1. We have a commit from a Rivals top 100 OT from Florida, who probably wouldn't have committed if he weren't a legacy.

2. There are two 4 stars in Nebraska this year. This has happened twice since 2004 (2008 and 2011).

3. We are likely the favorite to land a potential 5-star out of Texas. Would we be the favorite if his brother weren't on the team?

I disagree that we will recruit like a power. I think that we are making a step in the right direction though, and while our 2008-2010 classes all fell in the 20-30 range, I believe our future classes will land in the 15-25 range more often than not. I just don't see us with class averages similar to the top 14 teams on the list above.

Considering Neb is a traditional power, the winningest team over the last 50years, I'd say recruiting in the 20-something range is OK. I wouldn't call it very good. But coming off the crappy BC-years it was understandable, especially since this is Bo's first HC-job. IMO starting this class we'll have classes in the 10-20 range and IMO that is the range necessary to be a power. Yes we have some good fortune in that we have a couple in-state 4*'s and husker-relatives in Moore and Green. But to counter if the prognosticators are right, we have a big season and have guys like Paul, Crick, and Prince go early in the draft we can open-up a new level of recruiting. This staff is short on snake-oil, IMO the more legit results they can point to the better.

 

[AndyDufresne]

I apologize in advance for those that aren't interested.

Looking at the last two seasons (2008 and 2009), I have expanded my research. I have ranked the top 15 recruiting teams by averaging the 5 classes that would have made up the roster for each team for each year. I compared this to the final Sagarin rankings for the year. I used Sagarin rankings because they rank every team instead of just the top 25. I only included BCS teams in the study, and for both the Rivals and Sagarin rankings I ranked the BCS teams in order from 1 to 66 (so even though Indiana may have finished in the 100's in both rankings, the worst they would be assigned in my study would be 66th).

Here are the top 15 recruiting teams and how they finished among BCS teams in the 2008 Sagarin rankings:

1. USC - 2

2. Florida - 1

3. Georgia - 12

4. Florida State - 14

5. Oklahoma - 3

6. LSU - 18

7. Michigan - 61

8. Miami - 31

9. Ohio State - 11

10. Texas - 4

11. Alabama - 5

12. Auburn - 48

13. Tennessee - 46

14. Notre Dame - 43

15. Nebraska - 20

Here are the remaining top 15 BCS teams in the 2008 Sagarin rankings and their average Rivals ranking:

6. Penn State - 19

7. Texas Tech - 43

8. Mississippi - 23

9. Oregon - 21

10. Oregon State - 45

13. California - 17

15. Virginia Tech - 24

Here are the top 15 recruiting teams and how they finished among BCS teams in the 2009 Sagarin rankings:

1. USC - 17

2. Florida - 2

3. Georgia - 22

4. Alabama - 1

5. Florida State - 26

6. Oklahoma - 14

7. LSU - 11

8. Ohio State - 4

9. Texas - 3

10. Michigan - 59

11. Miami - 18

12. Auburn - 23

13. Tennessee - 30

14. Notre Dame - 41

15. South Carolina - 35

Here are the remaining top 15 BCS teams in the 2009 Sagarin rankings and their average Rivals ranking:

5. Virginia Tech - 20

6. Cincinnati - 65

7. Iowa - 38

8. Penn State - 22

9. Oregon - 26

10. Georgia Tech - 50

12. Nebraska - 16

13. Pittsburgh - 30

15. Arkansas - 25

Conclusions: Based on this 2 year study, teams ranked in the top 15 over a 5 year time period in Rivals team rankings had a 47% chance of being among the top 15 BCS teams in that year's Sagarin rankings. Teams ranked 16-25 had a 45% chance. 9 out of 10 top 5 teams during these two years were in the top 10 in team rankings. Texas was the lowest ranked in both the 2008 and 2009 team rankings, and those two 5 year class averages were 10.8 and 9.8. I'm sorry, but those that think we can average a top 10 class (or just over) for a 5 year term just aren't being realistic with the inherent disadvantages of recruiting to a state like Nebraska. I was shocked to see that in both years Sagarin rankings, the 6th-10th ranked teams were outside of the Rivals top 15. In fact, besides Alabama in 2008, teams ranked in the 16-25 range have fared much better than teams in the 11-15 range. FYI, the class averages for 16-25 for 2008 were 21.2 - 26.8. For 2009, they were 19.2 - 26.8.

 

[dylan]

great stuff