Mythbusters: Recruiting in the Big 12

[Nexus]

So much talk about this merger that was, but wasn't, that could be, but might not be. But it sure does look good on paper, doesn't it? Nebraska going to the Big 10. But there are myths involved with that, that being thought processes that are basically incorrect. Let's go with dispelling one which seems to have taken hold.
Leaving the Big 12 will not hurt recruiting in Texas.

I've seen that all over by this point.

The lack of at least one game each year inside the Lone Star State, is apparently inconsequential.

One of the main reasons for believing that is that Nebraska has to recruit nationally every year. So, it's not like they are just now dipping into Texas over the last 14 years the Big 12 conference has been formed.

No, that's correct. Nebraska did have some players from Texas on their rosters from the previous 105 years.

However, it might surprise you to find out just how many.

From 1996 to now, which includes the class of 2010, Nebraska totals 63 separate players listed from the state of Texas. That does include non-scholarship players, but as it's impossible (or darn difficult) to determine who did and didn't have scholarships in the 60s, I figured to just list them all.

That should mean there's going to be an enormous disparity between Texas players on Husker rosters since the formation of the conference and Texas players on Husker rosters the previous century-plus.

We also have to take into account that the numbers greatly fall in favor of the Husker teams prior to the formation of the conference. Until scholarship limitations took place in the late-90s, seeing close to 200 players on the roster wasn't uncommon.

So, another indication that the numbers between then and now are going to be even more ridiculous.

How ridiculous?

7

That's the difference

The difference between separate players on the roster from Texas from 1996 through today and the players on the roster from Texas from 1890 through 1995….is seven.

70 players.

Go ahead and count them. I did.

From 1956 When Bennie Dillard became the first player listed on a Husker roster from the state of Texas (Mt. Pleasant, to be precise) to Julius Jackson, one of eight players listed on the Husker roster in 1995 (the other seven were Kicker Kris Brown, safety Octavious McFarlin, offensive lineman Aaron Taylor, offensive lineman Mike Van Cleave, defensive lineman Scott Saltsman and offensive lineman Aaron Graham)….70 total players.

That surprise you?

It sure surprised me.

And it proves beyond any shadow of any doubt that while such greats as those you remember from the list above along with the likes of Jake Young, Broderick Thomas and Turner Gill – did indeed come from the state of Texas, there were a lot more players who came from that state who you wouldn't be able to name even if I gave you either their first or last name to use as a starting point to guessing.

Did you know that only two players from the state of Texas found themselves on a Husker roster during their back-to-back national titles in 70 and 71?

Do you know who they were?

Doug Jamail and Dan Malone.

Do you know who they were now?

Probably not.

If there is a myth, it's that you need Texas players to win national titles.

But getting some sure wouldn't hurt.

And the Big 12 makes it possible, certainly more possible than it ever was over the history of this program before this league came into being.

LINK

 

[AndyDufresne]

Recruiting was a different animal in the early years. Nebraska always took players from across the country, but the focus until the late 80's was definitely on in-state players. From 1972-1987, 40% of our classes were made up of Nebraska high school players. A good portion of the rest of the classes were from surrounding states. Comparing recruiting in the last couple of decades to those before isn't exactly comparing apples to apples.

 

[Nexus]

Recruiting was a different animal in the early years. Nebraska always took players from across the country, but the focus until the late 80's was definitely on in-state players. From 1972-1987, 40% of our classes were made up of Nebraska high school players. A good portion of the rest of the classes were from surrounding states. Comparing recruiting in the last couple of decades to those before isn't exactly comparing apples to apples.

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that the staff will continue to recruit Texas regardless what conference we're in. As I mentioned in another thread last week, there are presently 43 Texas kids on Big 10 rosters.

 

[HUSKER 37]

Recruiting was a different animal in the early years. Nebraska always took players from across the country, but the focus until the late 80's was definitely on in-state players. From 1972-1987, 40% of our classes were made up of Nebraska high school players. A good portion of the rest of the classes were from surrounding states. Comparing recruiting in the last couple of decades to those before isn't exactly comparing apples to apples.

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that the staff will continue to recruit Texas regardless what conference we're in. As I mentioned in another thread last week, there are presently 43 Texas kids on Big 10 rosters.

I was hoping someone credible would look into this before I had to.

I'm curious..How many Texas kids are on Big-12 rosters (not even having to count texas universities.

Also..How do the ratio of Texas Huskers compare with the past?.

~9 out of 200 pre Big-12 compared to ~7 out of 100 now? :dunno

 

[Nexus]

Recruiting was a different animal in the early years. Nebraska always took players from across the country, but the focus until the late 80's was definitely on in-state players. From 1972-1987, 40% of our classes were made up of Nebraska high school players. A good portion of the rest of the classes were from surrounding states. Comparing recruiting in the last couple of decades to those before isn't exactly comparing apples to apples.

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that the staff will continue to recruit Texas regardless what conference we're in. As I mentioned in another thread last week, there are presently 43 Texas kids on Big 10 rosters.

I was hoping someone credible would look into this before I had to.

I'm curious..How many Texas kids are on Big-12 rosters (not even having to count texas universities.

Also..How do the ratio of Texas Huskers compare with the past?.

~9 out of 200 pre Big-12 compared to ~7 out of 100 now? :dunno

According to Rivals, here are the Texas recruits breakdown for non-Texas schools in the Big 12. BTW, this also includes kids who attended Texas JUCO:

CU = 6

ISU = 19

KU = 29

KSU = 17

MU = 26

NU = 21

OSU = 48

OU = 48

As far as the past and present ratio goes, I'm not sure. I'd have to juggle whatever figures the article above cites and make a guess, but I can't imagine there being a big gap between the two? I could be wrong though. :dunno

 

[HUSKER 37]

Recruiting was a different animal in the early years. Nebraska always took players from across the country, but the focus until the late 80's was definitely on in-state players. From 1972-1987, 40% of our classes were made up of Nebraska high school players. A good portion of the rest of the classes were from surrounding states. Comparing recruiting in the last couple of decades to those before isn't exactly comparing apples to apples.

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that the staff will continue to recruit Texas regardless what conference we're in. As I mentioned in another thread last week, there are presently 43 Texas kids on Big 10 rosters.

I was hoping someone credible would look into this before I had to.

I'm curious..How many Texas kids are on Big-12 rosters (not even having to count texas universities.

Also..How do the ratio of Texas Huskers compare with the past?.

~9 out of 200 pre Big-12 compared to ~7 out of 100 now? :dunno

According to Rivals, here are the Texas recruits breakdown for non-Texas schools in the Big 12. BTW, this also includes kids who attended Texas JUCO:

CU = 6

ISU = 19

KU = 29

KSU = 17

MU = 26

NU = 21

OSU = 48

OU = 48

As far as the past and present ratio goes, I'm not sure. I'd have to juggle whatever figures the article above cites and make a guess, but I can't imagine there being a big gap between the two? I could be wrong though. :dunno

I guess what I thought I was reading into it, was that we have about the same number of Tejas kids (+/- 7), but that we also have mucho fewer total players on our roster due to scholarship restrictions over the years..like around half?

Probably depends on what slant the author was trying to go for.

 

[HUSKER 37]

'Course..

Now that I re-read the original link,

I'm led to believe that we've had 77 players from Texas durring the 14 years of the Big-12 experience, and 70 total in the 400 years before that.

Don't tell Shamwow Vince..He loves being right and logical.

 

[knapplc]

'Course..

Now that I re-read the original link,

I'm led to believe that we've had 77 players from Texas durring the 14 years of the Big-12 experience, and 70 total in the 400 years before that.

Don't tell Shamwow Vince..He loves being right and logical.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the past 14 years featured both the highest of the highs this program has seen in the past 40 years and the lowest of the lows? What does that tell us? It tells us that these numbers mean nothing.

Further, simply having "Texas kids" on our roster, or any team's roster, doesn't mean anything, either. What would be more important to note would be, how many of the Texas kids on various rosters around the conference, and specifically at Nebraska, were starters? How many were benchwarmers? Just having Texas kids on the roster doesn't mean much if those kids don't produce.

 

[Back In Black]

if you think we can take about 25% of our classes from our instate and be good...your crazy, we need Texas badly. College football recruiting was a lot different back then than it is now and so are the teams.

 

[AndyDufresne]

if you think we can take about 25% of our classes from our instate and be good...your crazy, we need Texas badly. College football recruiting was a lot different back then than it is now and so are the teams.

We don't need Texas badly. There are lots of other areas around the country with great football players. In the last couple of national championship games, teams with an emphasis on recruits from the Southeast have fared a lot better than teams with Texas recruits.

In many polls, we are preseason top 10 for next year. I project 6 starters from Nebraska for next year (Paul, Henry, Caputo, Steinkuhler, Crick, Fisher); which by my math is more than 25% of the starting 22. I'm not saying we should have 25% of our class be instate players, but look at the rest of the projected starters and you will see that we are certainly capable of fielding a good team without a heavy emphasis on Texas.

 

[kchusker_chris]

if you think we can take about 25% of our classes from our instate and be good...your crazy, we need Texas badly. College football recruiting was a lot different back then than it is now and so are the teams.

If we stopped recruiting Texas tomorrow does that mean that we couldn't sign 25 players this year? Only 18-19 then? I assure you we'd fill the additional 6 spots that will probably go to Texas players without a problem. They'd come from FL, CA, MO, KS, OK, CO, WA, OH, IL, NE or some other state we've pulled kids out of recently. Texas is a great spot to recruit, and I won't argue with you that it's marginally important to us today...but it's not a vital lifeline that would cause the NU football program to implode if lost. We don't "need" Texas recruiting. If you think we do you're crazy, because there are 1,500+ kids outside of Texas that will be ranked 3* and above this year by Rivals. Finding 25 that want to play for Nebraska, not a problem.

I bet Texas could stop recruiting Texas players and still sign a top 25 team from CA, FL, AL, LA, GA. Texas recruits are convenient for all involved, but certainly not required to field a team on Saturday.

 

[RockyMountainOySker]

if you think we can take about 25% of our classes from our instate and be good...your crazy, we need Texas badly. College football recruiting was a lot different back then than it is now and so are the teams.

If we stopped recruiting Texas tomorrow does that mean that we couldn't sign 25 players this year? Only 18-19 then? I assure you we'd fill the additional 6 spots that will probably go to Texas players without a problem. They'd come from FL, CA, MO, KS, OK, CO, WA, OH, IL, NE or some other state we've pulled kids out of recently. Texas is a great spot to recruit, and I won't argue with you that it's marginally important to us today...but it's not a vital lifeline that would cause the NU football program to implode if lost. We don't "need" Texas recruiting. If you think we do you're crazy, because there are 1,500+ kids outside of Texas that will be ranked 3* and above this year by Rivals. Finding 25 that want to play for Nebraska, not a problem.

I bet Texas could stop recruiting Texas players and still sign a top 25 team from CA, FL, AL, LA, GA. Texas recruits are convenient for all involved, but certainly not required to field a team on Saturday.

I can't believe we are still discussing if Texas recruiting is important. Why is this such a hot issue? Bo and Company have great ties to the state, so why should we stop? If you aren't suggesting we stop, why do you keep bringing this up?

Have you ever thought about money and time? We already concentrate a ton of time in Texas, Cali, and Florida. Yes, we could go on without these states but that means more travel for the coaches to places they don't have established relationships....which means more time to make the relationship better. Those states also have the highest concentration of high quality talent....why go there? Waste of time right?

Bill Callahan chose not to recruit Texas and that did wonders for our program. We don't "need" Texas to make 25 kids but why would we ever stop. This hypothetical discussion is so stupid.

 

[Huskerzoo]

if you think we can take about 25% of our classes from our instate and be good...your crazy, we need Texas badly. College football recruiting was a lot different back then than it is now and so are the teams.

If we stopped recruiting Texas tomorrow does that mean that we couldn't sign 25 players this year? Only 18-19 then? I assure you we'd fill the additional 6 spots that will probably go to Texas players without a problem. They'd come from FL, CA, MO, KS, OK, CO, WA, OH, IL, NE or some other state we've pulled kids out of recently. Texas is a great spot to recruit, and I won't argue with you that it's marginally important to us today...but it's not a vital lifeline that would cause the NU football program to implode if lost. We don't "need" Texas recruiting. If you think we do you're crazy, because there are 1,500+ kids outside of Texas that will be ranked 3* and above this year by Rivals. Finding 25 that want to play for Nebraska, not a problem.

I bet Texas could stop recruiting Texas players and still sign a top 25 team from CA, FL, AL, LA, GA. Texas recruits are convenient for all involved, but certainly not required to field a team on Saturday.

I can't believe we are still discussing if Texas recruiting is important. Why is this such a hot issue? Bo and Company have great ties to the state, so why should we stop? If you aren't suggesting we stop, why do you keep bringing this up?

Have you ever thought about money and time? We already concentrate a ton of time in Texas, Cali, and Florida. Yes, we could go on without these states but that means more travel for the coaches to places they don't have established relationships....which means more time to make the relationship better. Those states also have the highest concentration of high quality talent....why go there? Waste of time right?

Bill Callahan chose not to recruit Texas and that did wonders for our program. We don't "need" Texas to make 25 kids but why would we ever stop. This hypothetical discussion is so stupid.

Could be wrong but I think the discussion isn't about stopping recruiting in the state. The discussion is about the difficulties that will come up because we no longer will be having a yearly game in Texas (or against a Texas team). That's the reason that the OP refers to both pre Big 12 and post Big 12 formation. We won't stop recruiting there, it'll just be harder to land recruits. The argument then becomes if we step out of the Big 12 what are the potential recruiting ramifications.

 

[RockyMountainOySker]

if you think we can take about 25% of our classes from our instate and be good...your crazy, we need Texas badly. College football recruiting was a lot different back then than it is now and so are the teams.

If we stopped recruiting Texas tomorrow does that mean that we couldn't sign 25 players this year? Only 18-19 then? I assure you we'd fill the additional 6 spots that will probably go to Texas players without a problem. They'd come from FL, CA, MO, KS, OK, CO, WA, OH, IL, NE or some other state we've pulled kids out of recently. Texas is a great spot to recruit, and I won't argue with you that it's marginally important to us today...but it's not a vital lifeline that would cause the NU football program to implode if lost. We don't "need" Texas recruiting. If you think we do you're crazy, because there are 1,500+ kids outside of Texas that will be ranked 3* and above this year by Rivals. Finding 25 that want to play for Nebraska, not a problem.

I bet Texas could stop recruiting Texas players and still sign a top 25 team from CA, FL, AL, LA, GA. Texas recruits are convenient for all involved, but certainly not required to field a team on Saturday.

I can't believe we are still discussing if Texas recruiting is important. Why is this such a hot issue? Bo and Company have great ties to the state, so why should we stop? If you aren't suggesting we stop, why do you keep bringing this up?

Have you ever thought about money and time? We already concentrate a ton of time in Texas, Cali, and Florida. Yes, we could go on without these states but that means more travel for the coaches to places they don't have established relationships....which means more time to make the relationship better. Those states also have the highest concentration of high quality talent....why go there? Waste of time right?

Bill Callahan chose not to recruit Texas and that did wonders for our program. We don't "need" Texas to make 25 kids but why would we ever stop. This hypothetical discussion is so stupid.

Could be wrong but I think the discussion isn't about stopping recruiting in the state. The discussion is about the difficulties that will come up because we no longer will be having a yearly game in Texas (or against a Texas team). That's the reason that the OP refers to both pre Big 12 and post Big 12 formation. We won't stop recruiting there, it'll just be harder to land recruits. The argument then becomes if we step out of the Big 12 what are the potential recruiting ramifications.

You are right. There have just been a couple threads and a couple other threads taken over by this discussion over the last week or two. kc has just continuously said that Texas recruiting isn't important which is just silly. If we go to the Big10, recruiting doesn't change at all IMO (i've said this in multiple threads already). the strength of this staff is Texas...they will always recruit Texas until Tim Beck leaves or the Pelinis leave.

 

[dylan]

If we go to the Big10, recruiting doesn't change at all IMO (i've said this in multiple threads already). the strength of this staff is Texas...they will always recruit Texas until Tim Beck leaves or the Pelinis leave.

yup. i can't imagine the game or two a year we play in the state of texas is that big of a factor in getting texas kids. hell, we don't play any games in california or florida (the occasional bowl game aside) and we've had success in those states. for that matter, we had plenty of success in texas before we joined the big 12. we'll keep doing what we do and sure, we might miss the occasional kid because of this, but this whole discussion of a hit to texas recruiting is way overblown.