Our Class Ranking?

[robsker]

Watching film certainly has value. That said, virtually every player who gets a scholly at a major conference school will look good (to varying degrees) on film. And... if you look only at the film of the guys we got --- without comparing the film to the guys say that MSU, Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin, and Penn State (and the rest of the conference) got --- then you really cannot say whether this class stacks up with the other schools or not.

To say that this NU class is better than 5th or 6th best in the conference based on film, you would have to see the film of 12 programs X 20 players per program = ca. watching and comparing and contrasting 240 sets of film. Or...

you take at face value what people (at Rivals, at 247, at Scout, etc.) who actually did do the comparative film study say.

So... watch the film of the NU players... sure. But that will say nothing about how the class stacks up to the rest of the conference.

 

[Atbone95]

The argument I was addressing wasn't about how the class stacks up. It was about the statement that this class was weak and the comments about reaching, which I really don't think we did much of this year.

 

[RedSavage]

I didn't see this discussed anywhere so my bad if its already been discussed but what does Michigan have that NE doesn't? How do they consistently get top 25 recruiting classes every year? More talent in the surrounding areas? Slightly better location?

I just don't see how they pull in such highly ranked classes every year, when to me it seems they have a lot of the same recruiting disadvantages we do

 

[robsker]

The argument I was addressing wasn't about how the class stacks up. It was about the statement that this class was weak and the comments about reaching, which I really don't think we did much of this year.

ahh. Makes sense. That said, even for the argument you were addressing, watching the film of the players is doubtless better than not... but still not overly able to equip us to know one way or another about whether it is a weak class or a stretch (or whether it is not). Again, everyone looks pretty good on film. And one never knows how film against so many different levels of competition translates to what kids will do once here. Your point though is very well taken... we cannot reasonably assert that this is a weak class (or a strong one) yet in any absolute sense. In few years perhaps we can.

 

[Mavric]

I didn't see this discussed anywhere so my bad if its already been discussed but what does Michigan have that NE doesn't? How do they consistently get top 25 recruiting classes every year? More talent in the surrounding areas? Slightly better location?

I just don't see how they pull in such highly ranked classes every year, when to me it seems they have a lot of the same recruiting disadvantages we do

Populations of state and border states as of 2013:

Michigan - 9.9M

Wisconsin - 5.7M

Illinois - 12.8M

Indiana - 6.5M

Ohio - 11.5M

TOTAL - 46.4M

Nebraska - 1.8M

Colorado - 5.2M

Wyoming - 0.5M

S Dakota - 0.8M

Iowa - 3.1M

Missouri - 6.0M

Kansas - 2.9M

TOTAL - 20.3

So over double the population in surrounding states. 25% of Nebraska'a total is Colorado which doesn't exactly crank out football players. And Pennsylvania is just around the corner for Michigan which adds another 12.7M which would basically give Michigan three times the population base. I think that's a lot of it.

 

[robsker]

I didn't see this discussed anywhere so my bad if its already been discussed but what does Michigan have that NE doesn't? How do they consistently get top 25 recruiting classes every year? More talent in the surrounding areas? Slightly better location?

I just don't see how they pull in such highly ranked classes every year, when to me it seems they have a lot of the same recruiting disadvantages we do

Populations of state and border states as of 2013:

Michigan - 9.9M

Wisconsin - 5.7M

Illinois - 12.8M

Indiana - 6.5M

Ohio - 11.5M

TOTAL - 46.4M

Nebraska - 1.8M

Colorado - 5.2M

Wyoming - 0.5M

S Dakota - 0.8M

Iowa - 3.1M

Missouri - 6.0M

Kansas - 2.9M

TOTAL - 20.3

So over double the population in surrounding states. 25% of Nebraska'a total is Colorado which doesn't exactly crank out football players. And Pennsylvania is just around the corner for Michigan which adds another 12.7M which would basically give Michigan three times the population base. I think that's a lot of it.

outstanding point. It is tough to consistently draw recruits whose families will have a tough time traveling to see their son play. Not only does Michigan have ca. 3X the population to draw from, two others things may play in as well --- those states bordering Michigan are distributed towards more of an urban setting where football, generally, is more emphasized (I'd guess that more D1 athletes per capita are generated in the near Michigan states than in the near Nebraska states --- probably more like 8 to 1 vs. just population differential at 3 to 1) and... the travel time for families to get there geographically to see their son is more favorable (probably cheaper too).

It is much easier to recruit at Michigan than at NU... a numbers game. The whole of the conference has, to varying degrees, these same advantages over NU (or nearly the whole conference with Iowa being somewhat comparable --- but even they have an advantage somewhat).

 

[RedSavage]

I didn't see this discussed anywhere so my bad if its already been discussed but what does Michigan have that NE doesn't? How do they consistently get top 25 recruiting classes every year? More talent in the surrounding areas? Slightly better location?

I just don't see how they pull in such highly ranked classes every year, when to me it seems they have a lot of the same recruiting disadvantages we do

Populations of state and border states as of 2013:

Michigan - 9.9M

Wisconsin - 5.7M

Illinois - 12.8M

Indiana - 6.5M

Ohio - 11.5M

TOTAL - 46.4M

Nebraska - 1.8M

Colorado - 5.2M

Wyoming - 0.5M

S Dakota - 0.8M

Iowa - 3.1M

Missouri - 6.0M

Kansas - 2.9M

TOTAL - 20.3

So over double the population in surrounding states. 25% of Nebraska'a total is Colorado which doesn't exactly crank out football players. And Pennsylvania is just around the corner for Michigan which adds another 12.7M which would basically give Michigan three times the population base. I think that's a lot of it.

+1 That makes sense. Figured it was probably something like that but didn't realize it was such a large gap in surrounding population.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Quoting isn't working for some reason. AFHusker, post #85.

So many freaking things wrong with this its obvious why no one has come after you for it. Can you please, PLEASE tell me just how bad this class is? I mean, it's a terrible class right? Based on a star rating that an analyst gave a kid. Have you watched any film, at all? Please, give it a try. Then, let's have a rational discussion prospect by prospect about weaknesses you see that make this class so terribly weak. Because, if you had watched film, you'd have seen:

1) We have a great QB class. Darlington is medically cleared and AJ Bush is just a freak athlete that can be moved around (I mean, not that you'd know that if you hadn't watched his film).

2) Larenzo Stewart (who does have an academic risk but has said he will make it) comes into the B1G as the fastest dude in the league from day one. Everyone wants speed, right? Speed kills and we don't have any because we aren't in the SEC? Then you have Wilbon who is your coveted 4 star and so I won't go there.

3) We have possibly the most athletic WR in the country in Monte Harrison who, according to recent reports, is now leaning towards playing football instead of the MLB. Pierson-El? Watch film. Drool. Repeat. Jariah Tolbert, big body with pretty impressive hands, perfect replacement for Q. Glenn Irons is exactly what this return game has been missing if it translates.

4) TE is the one weak spot in the class, although I really like Freedom. Maybe projects better to the defense side, but oh well. Get over it.

5) OL - Watch film. Drool. Repeat. For an interesting counter to these star gazers, please read the OWH article about Tanner Farmer on Signing Day. Went from a low 3-star player to a top 5 OL in the 2014 class. I bet he just got better, right? No, stars are done off of camps. Quote I liked, by Farmer's dad after Tanner had attended a few camps and saw a huge boost in ratings : "It's not like he's any different, I swear. Just went out to a few camps and proved himself." Throw in Gates and Foster and Stoltenberg and I have no reason to see you complaining.

6) DL - Great haul. It's been hashed out so many times on this forum I won't go over it again. Very pleased with the haul here.

7) LB - Only needed 1. It sure sucks we only got a low 3-star player though.

Film please. Tell me you'd like to be steamrolled by Mr. Walton.

8) DB - Trai and Chris Jones are very, very underrated prospects. Trai, our 3-star CB, has NFL athleticism per NFL WR's. Throw in Mr. Kalu and Cockerell and I don't see what you're complaining about.

9 ST - Got a great, legacy kicker.

Now, if you'd like to watch some film and get back to me, I'd be more than happy to hash this out in a rational, fact-based discussion. Ignoring star ratings.

Ignore star ratings and rely completely on the hard-hitting analysis of "OH HE'S GREAT, HE'S A GREAT GREAT PLAYER, I DROOL WHEN I WATCH HIM YOU'RE DUMB FOR NOT THINKING THAT HAHA!".

Another dynamite contribution from kj

Lol @ KJ, as usual. I didn't say take my word for it. I said watch film. Try it. I threw out my opinion after watching film, take it or leave it. Not going to hurt my feelings.

It's hard not to agree with KJ. Recruiting rankings actually do tend to predict results. Dang near all D1 prospects look good on film, I would imagine you could watch the film of the Purdue, Colorado and Wake Forest recruits and come to the same conclusion. The fans of their recruiting classes probably say the exact same thing. "Our guy should be rated higher, if only Michigan/Oregon/Florida State offered, he'd be easily a 4*" or "It's a good thing those guys from Ohio State/USC/Virginia Tech didn't come offer after showing some initial interest, he is a very underrated 2*/3* kid".

In addition, many of our 'under the radar recruits' (guys like King, Jones, Irons and Tolbert, in addition to others) are located in area's that are routinely examined and recruited for every last drop of talent that can be found. The schools in the SEC, ACC and Big 12 s by and large decided that these kids aren't worth a spot on their roster even though they were inevitably noticed and identified. It's not like Tolbert and Irons didn't play in front of many scouts because the talent on their teams were enormous. Unless Bo and his staff saw something that those dozen or so other schools didn't, I'm gonna have to say that they are a pass.

 

[Mavric]

It's hard not to agree with KJ. Recruiting rankings actually do tend to predict results.

I'm still not sure the info in that article does much to to answer the chicken/egg question: Does better recruiting make your team better or are you recruiting better because you have a better team.

Their "five-star" class:

Alabama - won the 2009 national championship

Auburn - undefeated in 2004

Florida - won 2006 and 2008 national championships

Florida State - played for national championship in 2000 and won the ACC in 00-02-03-05

LSU - won 2007 national championship

Ohio State - won 2002 national championship and won B1G in 02-05-06-07-08-09

Oklahoma - won 200 national championship and won Big XII in 02-04-06-07-08

Texas - won 2005 national championship and won Big XII in 05-09

That leaves Georgia (pretty similar success over that timeframe as Nebraska) Michigan (noticeably worse over that period) and Notre Dame (one year better than NU; outside the Top 25 every other year).

Then you get to their "four-star" list. Oregon is obviously at the top with Stanford right there as well. After that, I'm not sure anyone else on that list has done better than Nebraska over that time: Probably South Carolina; Clemson the last couple years but it would be close over the last six; similar story with A&M & UCLA; I think the Huskers out-do Arky, Cal, Miami, UNC, Ole Miss, Penn St., Tennessee and Washington without too much trouble.

So, considering many like to complain about Nebraska's poor recruiting under Pelini, it's mainly only the teams that were already national title contenders when Pelini took over that have surpassed our success on the field. Most other teams have at best marginally better success than Nebraska and we've done quite a bit better than several despite our "sub standard" recruiting.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's hard not to agree with KJ. Recruiting rankings actually do tend to predict results.

I'm still not sure the info in that article does much to to answer the chicken/egg question: Does better recruiting make your team better or are you recruiting better because you have a better team.

Their "five-star" class:

Alabama - won the 2009 national championship

Auburn - undefeated in 2004

Florida - won 2006 and 2008 national championships

Florida State - played for national championship in 2000 and won the ACC in 00-02-03-05

LSU - won 2007 national championship

Ohio State - won 2002 national championship and won B1G in 02-05-06-07-08-09

Oklahoma - won 200 national championship and won Big XII in 02-04-06-07-08

Texas - won 2005 national championship and won Big XII in 05-09

That leaves Georgia (pretty similar success over that timeframe as Nebraska) Michigan (noticeably worse over that period) and Notre Dame (one year better than NU; outside the Top 25 every other year).

Then you get to their "four-star" list. Oregon is obviously at the top with Stanford right there as well. After that, I'm not sure anyone else on that list has done better than Nebraska over that time: Probably South Carolina; Clemson the last couple years but it would be close over the last six; similar story with A&M & UCLA; I think the Huskers out-do Arky, Cal, Miami, UNC, Ole Miss, Penn St., Tennessee and Washington without too much trouble.

So, considering many like to complain about Nebraska's poor recruiting under Pelini, it's mainly only the teams that were already national title contenders when Pelini took over that have surpassed our success on the field. Most other teams have at best marginally better success than Nebraska and we've done quite a bit better than several despite our "sub standard" recruiting.

Answering the chicken/egg question is difficult and hard to answer. But the article focus's more on winning % against teams with inferior recruiting. Those 'five-star' teams have a much higher winning % against 'four-star' teams, and an even higher % against 'three-star' teams, etc. The same is true in reverse (a 'one-star' team has a low % against 'two-star' teams, and an even lower % against 'three-star' teams).

I would argue that as Nebraska fans, we can use empirical evidence from our own records against those teams in the Pelini era to measure if this is in fact true. In this thread, the author mentions our records against certain teams based on their season ending records. While it doesn't go into detail about the exact teams (therefore it is hard to see our exact record against teams that are a '5-star' status), I know as a fan that we tend to only beat teams that are typically on our level or below. We've been searching for that big win against a real team (a 'five-star' team if you will) for 4 or 5 years now, and we can't just seem to get over the hump.

Furthermore, while Georgia has a similar record over the past several seasons and we're coming off a victory against them, I would argue that they have been better over the past 5 seasons than Nebraska. For the most part, they have competed on the field with top teams around the country (something we haven't been able to accomplish) and were a few plays away for playing in, and likely winning, a National Championship. The way other 'four-star' teams have competed on the field, even while boasting similar records, I think are superior to Nebraska's.

I think it's interesting to compare a team with the recruiting classes of LSU's to Nebraska's. LSU has consistently brought in top talent and top rankings for a number of years, and have lost 17 players to the NFL over the past two seasons (I'm assuming that all of the players that declared early this season are going to be taken). Even taking this into consideration, LSU is still going to be competitive and will probably compete for 10 wins in a brutal conference next season. If Nebraska lost 17 of it's players to the NFL over the last two years, what would our prospects be for next season?

The biggest difference between them is straight up talent. LSU's high recruiting rankings 'reload' them each season with players that are more likely to produce. Ours do not.

 

[Mavric]

I would argue that as Nebraska fans, we can use empirical evidence from our own records against those teams in the Pelini era to measure if this is in fact true.

Bo is 5-7 against the five star teams with three of the seven losses by a combined 11 points.

Started 2-6. 3-1 the last 1.5 years.

 

[Mavric]

We've been searching for that big win against a real team (a 'five-star' team if you will) for 4 or 5 years now, and we can't just seem to get over the hump.

We beat a five star team last month.

 

[Atbone95]

We've been searching for that big win against a real team (a 'five-star' team if you will) for 4 or 5 years now, and we can't just seem to get over the hump.

We beat a five star team last month.

Well you see, Georgia was down and on injuries and you really can't count that...

Just be happy, people. Kool-aid.

 

[Warrior10]

We've been searching for that big win against a real team (a 'five-star' team if you will) for 4 or 5 years now, and we can't just seem to get over the hump.

We beat a five star team last month.

Well you see, Georgia was down and on injuries and you really can't count that...

Just be happy, people. Kool-aid.

Yes, every time an SEC team loses they "don't want to be there" or are "injured", it's borderline comical!

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

We've been searching for that big win against a real team (a 'five-star' team if you will) for 4 or 5 years now, and we can't just seem to get over the hump.

We beat a five star team last month.

Well you see, Georgia was down and on injuries and you really can't count that...

Just be happy, people. Kool-aid.

Yes, every time an SEC team loses they "don't want to be there" or are "injured", it's borderline comical!

The national media ( mostly ESPN) certain tries to protect its investment by spinning things in that regard. That was a great win for our team, no doubt about it. Mavric's point about our record against those teams is actually pretty interesting, if not surprising. Still, let's not act like we're on the same level as those teams despite our recent success against 'five-star' teams (two wins against Michigan and a win against Georgia). Nebraska was very close to getting over the hump in 2009 and 2010 as the point differential Mavric pointed out proves, but I think we have regressed from that point for the past 3 seasons. Recruiting, relative to the teams that we're discussing, is a big reason why.