Recruiting problems with the 2010 class.

[Axl_sued_me]

What if the coaching staff and the "Tom Osborne Way" is scaring away these kids from potentially commiting? What I mean by that is, being too honest. Telling these kids that they are going to have to work hard and earn a spot regardless of what rankings they get from publications. To me, that would sound unattractive compared to another coach telling me that I can start right away, or I can get to the NFL with their system. If this is the case, I think the staff needs to change their approach. I'm not saying go into a living room and lie to the recruit, but kind of sugar coat it a little bit.

If we end up with a class of kids who aren't afraid of competition or hard work, is that such a bad thing? I know everyone is worked up about star ratings and who we beat out for this recruit or that recruit, but waiting to see how this approach manifests itself on the field in 2-3 years makes sense to me.

It wouldn't be bad. But "effort kids" aren't going to be able to beat OU and Texas.

Wake Forest is full of "effort kids". Their Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 77, 57, 95, 65, 75, 89, 58

Florida State's Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 4, 21, 3, 2, 3, 21, 9

There is no way that Wake Forest has won the head-to-head the last three years in a row, right?

I would like to think that our expectations as Husker Nation are a bit higher than Wake Forest's. The ACC is sorry.

And as far as FSU goes, Bobby Bowden expired at least 4 years ago.

So what are you arguing about exactly, coaching talent or recruiting standards. You say that the current class isn't going very well and that "effort" kids can't beat OU or UT, I take the second statement to mean that you don't think that the Top 30 classes the staff has pulled in over the last couple of years isn't good enough to beat OU and UT simply because they don't have enough talent in them. I think Biggerred just debunked your theory. He is showing that one of the best recruiting schools around, FSU, is putting a ton more talent on the field yet getting beat 3 straight years in a row by a well coached team full of "effort" players.

So if I posted the recruiting rankings of all of the schools that have competed for the BCS Championship within the last 7 years, does that debunk his theory??

It's a combo of having a good coach and getting good recruits. That's what USC, OU, UT, UF, OSU have in common. That's why they are always in the conversation.

I think that Nebraska has a very good coach. But with having a good coach and bringing in mediocre recruits, your program will look like a Mizzou or TTech where you are in the spotlight one year out of 8-10 years and you are spending the rest rebuilding. Good coach with good recruiting equals reloading instead of rebuilding. Good recruits with bad coaching, we have seen ourselves where that leads to.

 

[huskers1]

There's a huge difference bt contending in the acc every few years to being NEBRASKA and contending in the big 12 every year. I'm pretty sure nobody ever said that all you need is great players bc you obviously need good coaching, good S&C and players that have the want to. Above all though to be a year in year out competitor you absolutely, no question about it have to have consistently good recruiting classes. I'm not saying you have to have top five or ten every year but to consistently be mentioned as a NC contender you need to have top 15-top 20 recruiting classes every single year. Yes FSU has great talent and still doesn't do anything with it. IMO I think it has more to do with the fact that Bowden these days has lost his touch big time and Fisher isn't that good of a coach. If anyone here can name me a program that is consistently out of the top 20 by rivals or scout in recruiting and still contends for NC's on a regular basis I will be damn shocked.

 

[BiggerRed]

What if the coaching staff and the "Tom Osborne Way" is scaring away these kids from potentially commiting? What I mean by that is, being too honest. Telling these kids that they are going to have to work hard and earn a spot regardless of what rankings they get from publications. To me, that would sound unattractive compared to another coach telling me that I can start right away, or I can get to the NFL with their system. If this is the case, I think the staff needs to change their approach. I'm not saying go into a living room and lie to the recruit, but kind of sugar coat it a little bit.

If we end up with a class of kids who aren't afraid of competition or hard work, is that such a bad thing? I know everyone is worked up about star ratings and who we beat out for this recruit or that recruit, but waiting to see how this approach manifests itself on the field in 2-3 years makes sense to me.

It wouldn't be bad. But "effort kids" aren't going to be able to beat OU and Texas.

Wake Forest is full of "effort kids". Their Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 77, 57, 95, 65, 75, 89, 58

Florida State's Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 4, 21, 3, 2, 3, 21, 9

There is no way that Wake Forest has won the head-to-head the last three years in a row, right?

I would like to think that our expectations as Husker Nation are a bit higher than Wake Forest's. The ACC is sorry.

And as far as FSU goes, Bobby Bowden expired at least 4 years ago.

So what are you arguing about exactly, coaching talent or recruiting standards. You say that the current class isn't going very well and that "effort" kids can't beat OU or UT, I take the second statement to mean that you don't think that the Top 30 classes the staff has pulled in over the last couple of years isn't good enough to beat OU and UT simply because they don't have enough talent in them. I think Biggerred just debunked your theory. He is showing that one of the best recruiting schools around, FSU, is putting a ton more talent on the field yet getting beat 3 straight years in a row by a well coached team full of "effort" players.

So if I posted the recruiting rankings of all of the schools that have competed for the BCS Championship within the last 7 years, does that debunk his theory??

It's a combo of having a good coach and getting good recruits. That's what USC, OU, UT, UF, OSU have in common. That's why they are always in the conversation.

I think that Nebraska has a very good coach. But with having a good coach and bringing in mediocre recruits, your program will look like a Mizzou or TTech where you are in the spotlight one year out of 8-10 years and you are spending the rest rebuilding. Good coach with good recruiting equals reloading instead of rebuilding. Good recruits with bad coaching, we have seen ourselves where that leads to.

I have no theory for you to debunk. You typed that effort kids aren't going to be able to beat OU or Texas, and you were shown that effort kids can beat both recruiting and national powerhouses. No where did anyone state that effort kids were going to make up the next national powerhouse.

 

[Axl_sued_me]

What if the coaching staff and the "Tom Osborne Way" is scaring away these kids from potentially commiting? What I mean by that is, being too honest. Telling these kids that they are going to have to work hard and earn a spot regardless of what rankings they get from publications. To me, that would sound unattractive compared to another coach telling me that I can start right away, or I can get to the NFL with their system. If this is the case, I think the staff needs to change their approach. I'm not saying go into a living room and lie to the recruit, but kind of sugar coat it a little bit.

If we end up with a class of kids who aren't afraid of competition or hard work, is that such a bad thing? I know everyone is worked up about star ratings and who we beat out for this recruit or that recruit, but waiting to see how this approach manifests itself on the field in 2-3 years makes sense to me.

It wouldn't be bad. But "effort kids" aren't going to be able to beat OU and Texas.

Wake Forest is full of "effort kids". Their Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 77, 57, 95, 65, 75, 89, 58

Florida State's Rivals rankings since 2002 have been: 4, 21, 3, 2, 3, 21, 9

There is no way that Wake Forest has won the head-to-head the last three years in a row, right?

I would like to think that our expectations as Husker Nation are a bit higher than Wake Forest's. The ACC is sorry.

And as far as FSU goes, Bobby Bowden expired at least 4 years ago.

So what are you arguing about exactly, coaching talent or recruiting standards. You say that the current class isn't going very well and that "effort" kids can't beat OU or UT, I take the second statement to mean that you don't think that the Top 30 classes the staff has pulled in over the last couple of years isn't good enough to beat OU and UT simply because they don't have enough talent in them. I think Biggerred just debunked your theory. He is showing that one of the best recruiting schools around, FSU, is putting a ton more talent on the field yet getting beat 3 straight years in a row by a well coached team full of "effort" players.

So if I posted the recruiting rankings of all of the schools that have competed for the BCS Championship within the last 7 years, does that debunk his theory??

It's a combo of having a good coach and getting good recruits. That's what USC, OU, UT, UF, OSU have in common. That's why they are always in the conversation.

I think that Nebraska has a very good coach. But with having a good coach and bringing in mediocre recruits, your program will look like a Mizzou or TTech where you are in the spotlight one year out of 8-10 years and you are spending the rest rebuilding. Good coach with good recruiting equals reloading instead of rebuilding. Good recruits with bad coaching, we have seen ourselves where that leads to.

I have no theory for you to debunk. You typed that effort kids aren't going to be able to beat OU or Texas, and you were shown that effort kids can beat both recruiting and national powerhouses. No where did anyone state that effort kids were going to make up the next national powerhouse.

I just edited that line.

Having just "effort kids" is not going to lead Nebraska to being able to compete with the likes of UT or OU on a consistant basis.

 

[BiggerRed]

There's a huge difference bt contending in the acc every few years to being NEBRASKA and contending in the big 12 every year. I'm pretty sure nobody ever said that all you need is great players bc you obviously need good coaching, good S&C and players that have the want to. Above all though to be a year in year out competitor you absolutely, no question about it have to have consistently good recruiting classes. I'm not saying you have to have top five or ten every year but to consistently be mentioned as a NC contender you need to have top 15-top 20 recruiting classes every single year. Yes FSU has great talent and still doesn't do anything with it. IMO I think it has more to do with the fact that Bowden these days has lost his touch big time and Fisher isn't that good of a coach. If anyone here can name me a program that is consistently out of the top 20 by rivals or scout in recruiting and still contends for NC's on a regular basis I will be damn shocked.

You can be a consistently winning program without top 20 recruiting classes. NC contenders this decade tend to recruit at the highest levels, but they have also been in one of the big-4 talent states (OSU, Florida, USC, Texas) or border Texas (OU and LSU). We have neither advantage. There are also no more prop-48 recruits and there are NCAA imposed staff limitations and scholarship restrictions.

I love how everyone complaining about recruiting think that the coaches can just "do better", like it's easy to convince a 17 year old Longhorn fan from Houston to choose Nebraska. We are not going to beat Texas or OU at their own game. The deck is stacked in their favor. We need to find a new way to compete, like Osborne did with the walk-on program and tailoring his offense to take advantage of homegrown talent. Pelini also needs time to figure out what this way is. Perhaps instead of thinking future NC's, we should be thinking more about returning to a consistent winner and Big XII title game mainstay. It took Osborne a decade before we were really in the NC discussion. Why the hurry for Pelini?

 

[RedDenver]

Having just "effort kids" is not going to lead Nebraska to being able to compete with the likes of UT or OU on a consistant basis.

So what's it mean "to compete with the likes of UT or OU on a consistant basis"?

Here's the last few years against OU:

28-62

7-21

24-31

And UT:

25-28

20-22

We haven't beaten either team recently, but that's not what you said. And I think we have competed well except for last year against OU. How much is coaching or talent or desire going to change those scores? Nobody knows. But to simply say that "effort kids" cannot get it done as a blanket statement is, at best, closed-minded.

 

[Axl_sued_me]

Having just "effort kids" is not going to lead Nebraska to being able to compete with the likes of UT or OU on a consistant basis.

So what's it mean "to compete with the likes of UT or OU on a consistant basis"?

Here's the last few years against OU:

28-62

7-21

24-31

And UT:

25-28

20-22

We haven't beaten either team recently, but that's not what you said. And I think we have competed well except for last year against OU. How much is coaching or talent or desire going to change those scores? Nobody knows. But to simply say that "effort kids" cannot get it done as a blanket statement is, at best, closed-minded.

Tom Osborne tried to get it done with just effort players. Then realized he needed to go get a Tommie Frazier and a Lawrence Phillips to get over that hump.

I love how everyone complaining about recruiting think that the coaches can just "do better", like it's easy to convince a 17 year old Longhorn fan from Houston to choose Nebraska. We are not going to beat Texas or OU at their own game. The deck is stacked in their favor. We need to find a new way to compete, like Osborne did with the walk-on program and tailoring his offense to take advantage of homegrown talent.

Even with scholarship limitations which is 25 per year, (I could be wrong about that) there still is enough talent that comes out of Texas and California to go around. So in a way, the limitation rule works in our favor.

Perhaps instead of thinking future NC's, we should be thinking more about returning to a consistent winner and Big XII title game mainstay

Winning the Big 12 and being in contention for a NC go hand in hand.

 

[strigori]

There's a huge difference bt contending in the acc every few years to being NEBRASKA and contending in the big 12 every year. I'm pretty sure nobody ever said that all you need is great players bc you obviously need good coaching, good S&C and players that have the want to. Above all though to be a year in year out competitor you absolutely, no question about it have to have consistently good recruiting classes. I'm not saying you have to have top five or ten every year but to consistently be mentioned as a NC contender you need to have top 15-top 20 recruiting classes every single year. Yes FSU has great talent and still doesn't do anything with it. IMO I think it has more to do with the fact that Bowden these days has lost his touch big time and Fisher isn't that good of a coach. If anyone here can name me a program that is consistently out of the top 20 by rivals or scout in recruiting and still contends for NC's on a regular basis I will be damn shocked.

But here's the thing, you don't get the ratings, until you have been winning. Think about this a second. What do teams like OU, UT, UF and USC have in common besides the high rankings? They have nearly all of the recruiting class locked in before the current season starts. This is before rivals or scout has gone and done full evaluations and rankings. And I have heard from a scout's mouth that offers from these annual powers only helps the odds on more stars.

And highly touted recruits don't always translate to success, as we just witnessed with the Callahan years. The idea that Bo and Co are telling recruits they have to work hard for playing time is not a sensible reason for why players wouldnt come. Do you think Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops or Pete Carrol promise playing time to anyone?

A much more logical theory on why NU does not have a lot of recruits right now, is that Bo and Co are targeting just a few players that they are having to compete for. This is going to be a small class, less than 20, and I think they are only going after players they think will be special right now. Bo knows what a champion team looks like. Why would he try to make a team look like anything else?

 

[HuskerJen]

What if the coaching staff and the "Tom Osborne Way" is scaring away these kids from potentially commiting?

What I mean by that is, being too honest. Telling these kids that they are going to have to work hard and earn a spot regardless of what rankings they get from publications.

To me, that would sound unattractive compared to another coach telling me that I can start right away, or I can get to the NFL with their system.

If this is the case, I think the staff needs to change their approach. I'm not saying go into a living room and lie to the recruit, but kind of sugar coat it a little bit.

The part in blue...Good. I want to see Nebraska sign top talent, but I also want that talent to be dedicated and work hard.

The part in red...so you would tell a four or five star rated prospect that working out, studying film, coming to practice and putting forth the effort to actually win a starting spot isn't necessary? Good God I'm sooo glad you're not in charge, or have anything to do with Nebraska's recruiting.

The part in green...Most recruits aren't stupid and can see right through a sham. And as a coach if you promise something on the recruiting trail and you don't deliver once they get on campus then you've lost that kid mentally or he'll transfer.

The part in purple...You don't sugar coat anything. You tell that prospect quite simply that you like the way they play and with hard work they could become a great player.

Edit: Oh and as Bo has repeatedly said to potential recruits: If you come here, work hard and do the things we ask you to playing on Sunday will take care of itself.

 

[BiggerRed]

Having just "effort kids" is not going to lead Nebraska to being able to compete with the likes of UT or OU on a consistant basis.

So what's it mean "to compete with the likes of UT or OU on a consistant basis"?

Here's the last few years against OU:

28-62

7-21

24-31

And UT:

25-28

20-22

We haven't beaten either team recently, but that's not what you said. And I think we have competed well except for last year against OU. How much is coaching or talent or desire going to change those scores? Nobody knows. But to simply say that "effort kids" cannot get it done as a blanket statement is, at best, closed-minded.

Tom Osborne tried to get it done with just effort players. Then realized he needed to go get a Tommie Frazier and a Lawrence Phillips to get over that hump.

I love how everyone complaining about recruiting think that the coaches can just "do better", like it's easy to convince a 17 year old Longhorn fan from Houston to choose Nebraska. We are not going to beat Texas or OU at their own game. The deck is stacked in their favor. We need to find a new way to compete, like Osborne did with the walk-on program and tailoring his offense to take advantage of homegrown talent.

Even with scholarship limitations which is 25 per year, (I could be wrong about that) there still is enough talent that comes out of Texas and California to go around. So in a way, the limitation rule works in our favor.

Perhaps instead of thinking future NC's, we should be thinking more about returning to a consistent winner and Big XII title game mainstay

Winning the Big 12 and being in contention for a NC go hand in hand.

I didn't say winning the Big 12. I said being in the title game, so in essence winning the North.

Also, I'm not sure how you propose we compete with the national powerhouses when your solution is picking through their leftovers. I stand by that we need to do things a little differently. If we just follow what the others do but don't do it quite as well, more often than not we will come in behind them.

 

[Axl_sued_me]

Didn't Ted Gilmore say that the Huskers had 60 of their A-listers commit to other schools in the month of July. That's pretty alarming.

 

[rcruter]

what does NU have that will attract bigtime recruits? same question dogs MU as well. MU and KU have facilities that now match or exceed NU and none can match OKstate, tboone pickens hs made sure of that. Tradition? to kids nowadays, means little and they don't remember what happened 4 yrs ago, let alone 20. Not flaming, just curious. Seems like NU, KU and MU have to best at getting the "best of the rest" in TX and doing the best job of coaching them up. None of these hd coaches are like a Ron Zook at IL, who is an incredible recruiter but on coaching, not so much. He has more 5 stars than all 3 combined.

So what is the solution?

 

[knapplc]

Didn't Ted Gilmore say that the Huskers had 60 of their A-listers commit to other schools in the month of July. That's pretty alarming.

You don't seem to know a lot about recruiting with statements like these. What, exactly, does this prove? Let's say this is even true - how many A-listers do we have? Even if none of these 60 committed to other schools, we couldn't have signed more than 40% of them, and that's presuming that we ONLY had 60 A-listers. Clearly we don't, but that's beside the point. How many of these same kids were Oklahoma A-listers? Or Texas A-listers? USC? LSU? Clearly all 60 kids didn't sign with these four teams... so does that mean they've got problems, too?

You throw out these numbers completely out of context as if they mean something. You seem to be getting concerned over this, and you haven't seen anything of the product Bo is going to put on the field.

Leave off the panic button for another year or two why dontcha?

 

[Axl_sued_me]

Didn't Ted Gilmore say that the Huskers had 60 of their A-listers commit to other schools in the month of July. That's pretty alarming.

You don't seem to know a lot about recruiting with statements like these. What, exactly, does this prove? Let's say this is even true - how many A-listers do we have? Even if none of these 60 committed to other schools, we couldn't have signed more than 40% of them, and that's presuming that we ONLY had 60 A-listers. Clearly we don't, but that's beside the point. How many of these same kids were Oklahoma A-listers? Or Texas A-listers? USC? LSU? Clearly all 60 kids didn't sign with these four teams... so does that mean they've got problems, too?

You throw out these numbers completely out of context as if they mean something. You seem to be getting concerned over this, and you haven't seen anything of the product Bo is going to put on the field.

Leave off the panic button for another year or two why dontcha?

Texas, LSU and Oklahoma are nearly full for this class. They get who they want. USC will get theirs.

60 kids is a lot.

Look, the 2010 class will be the seniors when we play Miami in 14-15. I don't want to see Nebraska get out-matched like they did in 2002 or any other time they have played a top recruiting school.

 

[Husker B]

You seem to be referencing OU, Texas, LSU, and USC in almost every post in comparison to us, as if we should be in their league with grabbing high level recruits.

We never were. Even in the 90s when we were steamrolling everyone, Florida State was grabbing damn near 5 star recruit that was available.