Recruiting

[BigRedBuster]

I am not a person who follows recruiting heavily. At most, I follow it at arms length simply because I refuse to get emotionally tied up with decisions 18 year old kids make.

However, recruiting is a big factor in the future chance a program has of winning big games. You have to have play makers.

Here are the last 5 recruiting class rankings for these two teams:

UCLA NU

2012 12 50

2011 55 19

2010 8 29

2009 5 33

2008 10 21

Average 18 30.4

How much of a factor does this have when a program has that much more talent coming in over a 5 year period?

Now, I'm not saying we can't beat UCLA. BUT, if this is the case, then we need to out coach the other team and run better schemes that put our players in a position to succeed. We aren't doing that.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I am not a person who follows recruiting heavily. At most, I follow it at arms length simply because I refuse to get emotionally tied up with decisions 18 year old kids make.

However, recruiting is a big factor in the future chance a program has of winning big games. You have to have play makers.

Here are the last 5 recruiting class rankings for these two teams:

UCLA NU

2012 12 50

2011 55 19

2010 8 29

2009 5 33

2008 10 21

Average 18 30.4

How much of a factor does this have when a program has that much more talent coming in over a 5 year period?

Now, I'm not saying we can't beat UCLA. BUT, if this is the case, then we need to out coach the other team and run better schemes that put our players in a position to succeed. We aren't doing that.

Uh, it's a huge factor.......................and the talent we've recruited isn't on the field because apparently their knowledge isn't up to par. I'm a fairly smart individual, 5'8" 185 lbs, so let's say a small CB. I'm 32 years old, but if I learn the defense to a T.............................can I play D1 football at Nebraska? I say no, but if this thinking is the way Bo and Co. are thinking then I'm on my way to enroll at NU. :lol:

 

[knapplc]

I made this point last Wednesday. We knew they had athletes out there. We just didn't know what Mora could do with them:

Regarding UCLA having athletes to compete with us: It may be a question of, do we have the athletes to compete with them? Here are their last five recruiting classes next to ours:

Year - UCLA / NU

2008 - 13 / 30

2009 - 14 / 28

2010 - 8 / 22

2011 - 45 / 15

2012 - 13 / 25

 

[HuskerT]

I made this point last Wednesday. We knew they had athletes out there. We just didn't know what Mora could do with them:

Regarding UCLA having athletes to compete with us: It may be a question of, do we have the athletes to compete with them? Here are their last five recruiting classes next to ours:

Year - UCLA / NU

2008 - 13 / 30

2009 - 14 / 28

2010 - 8 / 22

2011 - 45 / 15

2012 - 13 / 25

Point taken.

 

[skersfan]

IE, better coach.

 

[SECHusker]

I am not a person who follows recruiting heavily. At most, I follow it at arms length simply because I refuse to get emotionally tied up with decisions 18 year old kids make.

However, recruiting is a big factor in the future chance a program has of winning big games. You have to have play makers.

Here are the last 5 recruiting class rankings for these two teams:

UCLA NU

2012 12 50

2011 55 19

2010 8 29

2009 5 33

2008 10 21

Average 18 30.4

How much of a factor does this have when a program has that much more talent coming in over a 5 year period?

Now, I'm not saying we can't beat UCLA. BUT, if this is the case, then we need to out coach the other team and run better schemes that put our players in a position to succeed. We aren't doing that.

Recruiting does play a factor, but putting the players in a place where they can shine and coaching is more important. There have been plenty of teams ISU, Iowa, Nebraska under Solich, KState, and a host of other teams that haven't had as strong of a recruiting class as we have had but do just fine with their talent.