Number of consensus top 10 classes 1990-97?

[huKSer]

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

That is exactly what I have previously stated. Let the NFL be the judge of talent, not websites...

Yeah, they are soooooooo great at that:

Evidence #1 - this guy:

Evidence #2 - this team:

 

[rawhide]

:yeah :lol:

 

[HuskerJen]

First, the assumption that talent on a college football team is best measured by the predictions of college football success based upon High School performance --- this is, based upon recruiting rankings, is very flawed. The talent of a college football team is MUCH BETTER measured by players exiting that team and making it in the NFL draft.

You had a nice post overall, though the part I'm quoting here I'm going to disagree with.

Talent on a college football would be better off being measured by wins, performance statistics and, to a lesser degree, post-season honors: All-Conference, All-American etc.

For example, Joe Ganz is certainly a talented college QB but he's probably not going to get a shot at the NFL because he doesn't have the prototypical "measurables." Conversely, Josh Freeman was a mediocre to poor college QB but because he has those "measurables" some NFL team will draft him and he'll be a huge embarrassing bust.

Furthermore, if you use being drafted as the cornerstone for judging talent how do you measure talent? Is just being drafted good enough, or is there a sliding scale? What happens when guys slide down in the draft due to injury, does that diminish the talent they previously had?

 

[caveman99]

First, the assumption that talent on a college football team is best measured by the predictions of college football success based upon High School performance --- this is, based upon recruiting rankings, is very flawed. The talent of a college football team is MUCH BETTER measured by players exiting that team and making it in the NFL draft.

You had a nice post overall, though the part I'm quoting here I'm going to disagree with.

Talent on a college football would be better off being measured by wins, performance statistics and, to a lesser degree, post-season honors: All-Conference, All-American etc.

For example, Joe Ganz is certainly a talented college QB but he's probably not going to get a shot at the NFL because he doesn't have the prototypical "measurables." Conversely, Josh Freeman was a mediocre to poor college QB but because he has those "measurables" some NFL team will draft him and he'll be a huge embarrassing bust.

Furthermore, if you use being drafted as the cornerstone for judging talent how do you measure talent? Is just being drafted good enough, or is there a sliding scale? What happens when guys slide down in the draft due to injury, does that diminish the talent they previously had?

Very good point Jen, I was about to post the same thing. I think robsker is right that in a way the number of NFL players coming from a program is a good way to judge the overall talent level, but that isn't necessarily the end all be all. If that is all you used to judge the level of talent then you leave out all of those fantastic players who just don't quite have the measurables for the NFL, or got hurt, or simply just didn't want to play in the NFL yet (very rare but has happened). By his standard, Joe Ganz, Chase Daniel, Tommie Frazier, Zac Taylor, etc. wouldn't count as a good measure of talent in their programs.

Maybe a better way to judget the talent in a program is to combine the Recruiting Rankings (the raw talent level) with the acomplishments of the team (showing how much talent is performing at a high level in college) and add in the number of players that leave for the NFL (showing the number of the rarified studs a program is turning out).

 

[huKSer]

Maybe a better way to judget the talent in a program is to combine the Recruiting Rankings (the raw talent level) with the acomplishments of the team (showing how much talent is performing at a high level in college) and add in the number of players that leave for the NFL (showing the number of the rarified studs a program is turning out).

With a bonus for those leaving early for NFL?

 

[caveman99]

Maybe a better way to judget the talent in a program is to combine the Recruiting Rankings (the raw talent level) with the acomplishments of the team (showing how much talent is performing at a high level in college) and add in the number of players that leave for the NFL (showing the number of the rarified studs a program is turning out).

With a bonus for those leaving early for NFL?

No I would keep it simple. If you do that then you would have to evaluate just how good a certain player was in the NFL, and that goes beyond what we would be looking for.

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

That is exactly what I have previously stated. Let the NFL be the judge of talent, not websites...

Yeah, they are soooooooo great at that:

Evidence #1 - this guy:

Evidence #2 - this team:

One..the Chiefs suck and always will. I'm talking the entire NFL.

Two..if you go by the other ways to measure talent, Leaf would be superhuman. Parade all american, fantastic career in college, record setting for his conference. Overall the NFL is a much better judge of talent than a bunch of fat geeks using formulas for 40 times for high school kids.

 

[huKSer]

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

That is exactly what I have previously stated. Let the NFL be the judge of talent, not websites...

Yeah, they are soooooooo great at that:

Evidence #1 - this guy:

Evidence #2 - this team:

One..the Chiefs suck and always will. I'm talking the entire NFL.

Two..if you go by the other ways to measure talent, Leaf would be superhuman. Parade all american, fantastic career in college, record setting for his conference. Overall the NFL is a much better judge of talent than a bunch of fat geeks using formulas for 40 times for high school kids.

My point was NOBODY can predict accurately how someone will perform in the future - HS, college or NFL. There are too many variables. Brady was an after thought - Leaf got into a situation that wasn't productive for what ever reason. If he got drafted by another team his situation might have been better. How many Husker recruits were flame outs?

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

That is exactly what I have previously stated. Let the NFL be the judge of talent, not websites...

Yeah, they are soooooooo great at that:

Evidence #1 - this guy:

Evidence #2 - this team:

One..the Chiefs suck and always will. I'm talking the entire NFL.

Two..if you go by the other ways to measure talent, Leaf would be superhuman. Parade all american, fantastic career in college, record setting for his conference. Overall the NFL is a much better judge of talent than a bunch of fat geeks using formulas for 40 times for high school kids.

My point was NOBODY can predict accurately how someone will perform in the future - HS, college or NFL. There are too many variables. Brady was an after thought - Leaf got into a situation that wasn't productive for what ever reason. If he got drafted by another team his situation might have been better. How many Husker recruits were flame outs?

I agree, but a good NFL career is a good barometer of how talented said player was in college. Much better than a recruiting "expert's" prediction before they are in a single college practice.

 

[husker B-rent]

ummm.....actually, contrary to popular belief Nebraska was almost always ranked in the top 10 nationally in recruiting rankings. No, not by rivals or scout but by the national college football magazines that were out at the time. The same class that Tommie Frazier was in was ranked by most publications as the #1 recruiting class and the publications that didnt rank them #1, ranked them top 3. here is that class:

March 1992 edition

1. Larry Arnold

2. Damon Benning

3. Willis Brown

4. Clinton Childs

5. Chris Dishman

6. Tommie Frazier

7. Jon Hesse

8. Mike Minter

9. Ed Morrow

10. Jeff Ogard

11. Ben Rutz

12. Scott Saltsman

13. T J Scribner

14. Marvin Sims

15. Jim Stiebel

16. Eric Stokes

17. Ryan Terwilliger

18. Larry Townsend

19. Riley Washington

20. Kareem Moss

21. Toby Wright

Our 89 class is one that i actually found a book with the ranking in and we were ranked number 7 with only 3 (yes 3) nebraska kids on the roster, this by the way was from Max Emfinger.

Omaha World Herald

Feb 9, 1989 edition

1. Mike Anderson

2. Lance Lundberg

3. David Noonan

4. Trev Alberts

5. Byron Bennett

6. Troy Branch

7. Lorenzo Brinkley

8. Derek Brown

9. Marvin Callies

10. Howard Carter

11. Bart Furrow

12. Daryl Green

13. Chad Hunter

14. Gerry Irons

15. Mike Jefferson

16. Lance larson

17. Vernon Powell

18. John Reece

19. Will Shields

20. Billy Wade

21. Darren Williams

We were not in the top ten every year, but we were in it most years and we were never outside of the top 20 as far as i can tell.

you can tell me i am wrong and that we won the '95 national title with tommie frazier being the only scholarship player and everyone else was a walk on, but you are wrong. these are facts and we were quite the recruiters in the day......

 

[husker B-rent]

double post!

 

[Huskers Forever]

ummm.....actually, contrary to popular belief Nebraska was almost always ranked in the top 10 nationally in recruiting rankings. No, not by rivals or scout but by the national college football magazines that were out at the time. The same class that Tommie Frazier was in was ranked by most publications as the #1 recruiting class and the publications that didnt rank them #1, ranked them top 3. here is that class:

March 1992 edition

1. Larry Arnold

2. Damon Benning

3. Willis Brown

4. Clinton Childs

5. Chris Dishman

6. Tommie Frazier

7. Jon Hesse

8. Mike Minter

9. Ed Morrow

10. Jeff Ogard

11. Ben Rutz

12. Scott Saltsman

13. T J Scribner

14. Marvin Sims

15. Jim Stiebel

16. Eric Stokes

17. Ryan Terwilliger

18. Larry Townsend

19. Riley Washington

20. Kareem Moss

21. Toby Wright

Our 89 class is one that i actually found a book with the ranking in and we were ranked number 7 with only 3 (yes 3) nebraska kids on the roster, this by the way was from Max Emfinger.

Omaha World Herald

Feb 9, 1989 edition

1. Mike Anderson

2. Lance Lundberg

3. David Noonan

4. Trev Alberts

5. Byron Bennett

6. Troy Branch

7. Lorenzo Brinkley

8. Derek Brown

9. Marvin Callies

10. Howard Carter

11. Bart Furrow

12. Daryl Green

13. Chad Hunter

14. Gerry Irons

15. Mike Jefferson

16. Lance larson

17. Vernon Powell

18. John Reece

19. Will Shields

20. Billy Wade

21. Darren Williams

We were not in the top ten every year, but we were in it most years and we were never outside of the top 20 as far as i can tell.

you can tell me i am wrong and that we won the '95 national title with tommie frazier being the only scholarship player and everyone else was a walk on, but you are wrong. these are facts and we were quite the recruiters in the day......

Great post.

 

[husker B-rent]

also contrary to belief, TOs classes were typically smaller than our recent classes averaging only around 19-20 a year.....

 

[Ohio Pete]

USC gets top 5 and most of the time top 3 if not #1 classes. I wanted someone to show me where Nebraska signed CONSENSUS top 10 classes in football recruiting EVERY YEAR like USC because someone posted that Nebraska had the same type of talent USC has today back in the 90s!

Is this the same guy who just posted that we don't get the #1 RBs anymore like we used to in the 90s?

Anyway, if you must know (though as pointed out, the statement "Nebraska had the same type of talent USC has today back in the 90s" has nothing to do with recruiting rankings), finding these ratings is apparently a pain in the a$$ for some damn reason. (Any drop of knowledge I had would be posted on the web with a google ad on it.)

But on a competing web site someone posted Nebraska's rankings from SuperPrep (now Scout):

1987 #7

1988 #24

1989 #12

1990 #10

1991 #28

1992 #14

1993 #9

1994 #20

1995 #8

1996 #6

1997 #19

1998 #17

1999 #17

I also found on an old PSU site the following ratings for the 1996 class (which don't match the above <_< ):

Lemming #10

SuperPrep #4 :dunno

BlueChip Illustrated > 10

National Recruiting Advisor #9

G&W Recruiting #7

Bill Buchalter #8

(Rivaling the 2005 class as the best rated in Nebraska history?)

None of those services rated the 1997 class in their top 10.

As point of reference here are the rankings for some schools of interest:

Colorado (1990 AP National Champ):

1986 #15

1987 >20

1988 #19

1989 #19

1990 #18

1991 #8

Georgia Tech (1990 UPI National Champ)

1986 > 25

1987 > 20

1988 > 25

1989 > 25

1990 > 25

1991 #21

Miami (1991 AP National Champ)

1986 #21

1987 #18

1988 #18

1989 #9

1990 #11

1991 #14

1992 #2

Washington (1991 UPI National Champ)

1986 #7

1987 #12

1988 #17

1989 > 25

1990 > 25

1991 #4

1992 #24

Florida State (1993, 1999 National Champ)

1986 #17

1987 >20

1988 #8

1989 #2

1990 #2

1991 #3

1992 #8

1993 #1

1994 #3

1995 #2

1996 #5

1997 #1

1998 #4

1999 #15

Florida (1996 National Champ)

1990 > 25

1991 #9

1992 #1

1993 #8

1994 #14

1995 #3

1996 >10

1997 #3

1998 #7

1999 #7

Tennessee (1998 National Champ)

1992 #25

1993 #4

1994 #1

1995 #18

1996 #8

1997 #8

1998 #8

1999 #13

Notre Dame (1988 National Champ)

1986 #9

1987 #1

1988 #1

1989 #1

1990 #1

1991 #16

1992 #7

1993 #2

1994 #7

1995 #1

1996 #3

1997 #9

1998 #3

1999 #8

OTOH:

The popular belief was anytime Notre Dame was ranked outside the top 5 in recruiting, it was a down year. The reasoning was because Notre Dame had the largest fan base, services would rank them higher to appease their constituency.Meanwhile, a school such as Miami didn’t ranked as high in recruiting because it had a far less fervent fan base – but the Hurricanes still won the titles on the field.

Regardless, the 5 recruiting titles translated into only one national title in 1988.
Anyway, while Nebraska might not have averaged the top 10 class in the 90s that a USC has this decade, I think we can call scoreboard: 3 NTs to 2 (or 2 1/2 to 1 1/2 if you're a d!ck).

If I was to pick a school in the 90s with the same "talent" as USC has now, I'd go with FSU. Despite being one of the recruiting power houses, FSU only managed the 1993 and 1999 titles. :dunno