Or, we go back the averages listed in your other link rather than cherry-picking single years from various recruitnik rankings from a time during the infancy of that cottage industry.
Riley vs. Harbaugh Recruiting: A Parent Chimes In
- Thread starter eightlaces
- Start date
Or, we go back the averages listed in your other link rather than cherry-picking single years from various recruitnik rankings from a time during the infancy of that cottage industry.
TO handed out more than anyone after him?
Based on TO's record of LOIs signed, he would not have had a problem complying with today's restrictions, because he wasn't bumping up against the previous restrictions (assuming even an impressive attrition rate of only 20%). Even with the 4 year groupings you had, TO wasn't maxing out or close to the scholarship limits (not including whatever he may have awarded to walkons).
As to the allegation that TO signed more than his successors, Callahan signed 84 in just 3 classes (between '05 and '07).
I don't know what to tell you other than, a smart coach takes the maximum number of guys he can to fit his system. He doesn't shotgun offers out and then just fill a class to the max. If you go back and read TO's comments about classes, he would talk about not trying to sign 25+ kids just for the heck of it. It was more about signing the "right" 22 or so.BlitzFirst said:
Based on TO's record of LOIs signed, he would not have had a problem complying with today's restrictions, because he wasn't bumping up against the previous restrictions (assuming even an impressive attrition rate of only 20%). Even with the 4 year groupings you had, TO wasn't maxing out or close to the scholarship limits (not including whatever he may have awarded to walkons).
As to the allegation that TO signed more than his successors, Callahan signed 84 in just 3 classes (between '05 and '07).
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Couple things:
If scheme can so successfully cover for talent, why haven't more teams run an Osborne style offense? You make the advantage sound like a no-brainer.
Since so few teams rely so little on passing, that means the vast majority of college football teams are filling their ranks with football-sized linemen who know how to both pass block and run block. Maybe they are dazzled by the bright lights of East Lansing, Provo, Bloomington, Tuscaloosa or Norman, leaving poor Nebraska to troll for 6'1" linemen who lack a key skill and have no ambition for professional football.
Or maybe you just have it wrong. Success has always been a combination of talent, scheme and coaching. And sometimes a bit of luck. Laying it all at the feet of scheme is just silly and I think you know that. But you dug yourself in too deep and you just can't stop.
Are people really blaming the players far more than the staff? I see plenty of blame on both sides and glimmers of hope as well.
So we could take a deep breath and see what Mike Riley can do with some new recruits, the players who bought in, and the lessons of his first season.
Most of the top offenses in the country have borrowed heavily from TO's principles. Even those doing it with a little more pass (i.e., those south of the mason Dixon).
I can't explain why a lot of coaches don't switch to kore effective systems. Even back when TO was winning a ton, coaches weren't switching. Some of its ego; they want to run a pro style system and emulate the pro game. Some of it's a matter of momentum and understanding. Coaches come up under one system, and it's really hard for them to break their habits even when they see other coaches succeeding with something else. Other teams may not face the disadvantages/circumstances that face NU, so they can get away with a more pro style system. I don't know that even those teams field elite or exciting offenses, but I can see why they don't bother switching.
In any event, I can't get past TO's comments that he developed a system that is best suited for Nebraska. Especially when I look to missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Colorado and see programs that have found little to no success running "pro style" systems, particularly when those systems don't feature a mobile QB as a primary run threat.
I can't explain why a lot of coaches don't switch to kore effective systems. Even back when TO was winning a ton, coaches weren't switching. Some of its ego; they want to run a pro style system and emulate the pro game. Some of it's a matter of momentum and understanding. Coaches come up under one system, and it's really hard for them to break their habits even when they see other coaches succeeding with something else. Other teams may not face the disadvantages/circumstances that face NU, so they can get away with a more pro style system. I don't know that even those teams field elite or exciting offenses, but I can see why they don't bother switching.
In any event, I can't get past TO's comments that he developed a system that is best suited for Nebraska. Especially when I look to missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Colorado and see programs that have found little to no success running "pro style" systems, particularly when those systems don't feature a mobile QB as a primary run threat.
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
I see the problem.
You think a team that throws the ball is running a "pro style" offense not suited to college level talent.
The reason why a lot of coaches don't switch to more a effective system is because they already have one. Like Tom Osborne, they take bits and pieces of the offenses that came before them, including the triple option running attack and the WCO, and adapt to their needs. Because defenses are constantly adjusting to counter those moves, offenses have to keep changing sets and schemes. But it's still college football. There's running and passing and the best players do a lot of things well.
Again, the demand of finding offensive linemen that can get both dominate forward push and fast sideways pull is comparable to finding offensive lineman who can hold a pass rush. A good triple option quarterback has to be every bit the athlete and decision-maker as a pro-set quarterback. It's not like they're easier to find. Because every offense benefits from good running backs, you'll still be competing with every other team for good running backs.
You seem to be engaging in a false argument between a true air raid offense -- of which there are few --- and a vintage power option offense -- of which there are few. Most teams, including everyone in the Big 10, fall somewhere in the middle. The best teams have deep talent and good coaching. It's always been that way.
You think a team that throws the ball is running a "pro style" offense not suited to college level talent.
The reason why a lot of coaches don't switch to more a effective system is because they already have one. Like Tom Osborne, they take bits and pieces of the offenses that came before them, including the triple option running attack and the WCO, and adapt to their needs. Because defenses are constantly adjusting to counter those moves, offenses have to keep changing sets and schemes. But it's still college football. There's running and passing and the best players do a lot of things well.
Again, the demand of finding offensive linemen that can get both dominate forward push and fast sideways pull is comparable to finding offensive lineman who can hold a pass rush. A good triple option quarterback has to be every bit the athlete and decision-maker as a pro-set quarterback. It's not like they're easier to find. Because every offense benefits from good running backs, you'll still be competing with every other team for good running backs.
You seem to be engaging in a false argument between a true air raid offense -- of which there are few --- and a vintage power option offense -- of which there are few. Most teams, including everyone in the Big 10, fall somewhere in the middle. The best teams have deep talent and good coaching. It's always been that way.
I would rather NU go to an air raid system then try to chase "balance" in terms of play selection.
It's not passing that I dislike, though I don't think B10 country is conducive to it. It's the notion that NU can and should "be equally good at two things" that make me concerned.
It's not passing that I dislike, though I don't think B10 country is conducive to it. It's the notion that NU can and should "be equally good at two things" that make me concerned.
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
That's pretty weird, even for you.
Why do you keep putting "balance" in quotations marks? Why on earth do you think it's difficult or undesirable for a team to be good at both passing the ball and running the ball? Teams do it all the time. High school teams. Pop Warner teams. It's not exotic or difficult to pull off. It's just football.
The Big 10 is conducive to passing....when the situation calls for it. Jim Harbaugh needed his QB to wing it 50 times to beat Indiana. Stave threw the ball 50 times in a Wisconsin game last season. Michigan State did too. Other games they kept it on the ground. Everybody loves a good ground game, as long as you can get away with it. When you can't, you pass the ball. When you can keep them guessing, all the better. If you like dual threat quarterbacks, you really gotta like dual threat offenses.
This "jack of all trades, master of none" meme is kinda tiresome. No idea why you'd have to choose. Other teams don't. Good teams are master of a bunch of trades, including defense. That's the whole point of being good. You act like "balance" is something beyond the simple needs and abilities of Nebraska. You've already given up on our ability to compete for recruits.
If the words "equal" and 'balance" are hanging you up, then sure, I'd rather see more of a 60/40 run pass split than last year's 50/50. That's where the teams we aspire to be hang out, and it's a far cry from either an air raid or vintage option offense.
Yes. Teams do it all of the time. And usually they end up being pretty average or worse.
I wont bother to explain to you why a 65/35 or more unbalanced ratio in favor of the pass is actually more effective, because you don't want to listen. Hell, you even point to stave as a positive example of offensive effectiveness.
It's cool.
I wont bother to explain to you why a 65/35 or more unbalanced ratio in favor of the pass is actually more effective, because you don't want to listen. Hell, you even point to stave as a positive example of offensive effectiveness.
It's cool.
That seems like a pretty bold statement to make - do you know of any statistical analysis or data that supports this claim? The defending national champions, the Alabama Crimson Tide, were a 53% pass & 47% rush team in 2015. That's about as balanced as you're going to get. You're probably going to say that they're an outlier, not a standard. I would like to see some statistical proof that is wide-ranging and applicable across the entire college football landscape if that is your argument. Otherwise, it really doesn't mean much.cm husker said:
Regardless, go back and look at Riley's run/pass splits back to 2003. You'll find he had three seasons where his teams threw 63.8, 61.3 and 58.3 percent of the time. He also had a season where they threw 55.7 percent of the time. Otherwise, they've floated roughly in the 50/50 realm.
Furthermore, his best seasons (2006, 2007) featured a ~52 percent favoring of the run and a 55 percent favoring the run.
All this means is Riley appears to strive for balance, but he had several seasons where he threw that to the wind in favor of the part of his offense he felt was more successful, including being very close to that 65/35 ratio you mentioned (and just so you know - the 2013 season is when they threw 63.8 percent of the time and they went 7-6.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Offensively, Alabama was really quite average. Bama has won their championships with defense, for the most part.
Look at the top 10 offensive teams and there split.
Your comments about Riley's record just show me that he's truly a man without a system. And that is a recipe for mediocrity in college football. It doesn't surprise me he's had such a below average record.
Look at the top 10 offensive teams and there split.
Your comments about Riley's record just show me that he's truly a man without a system. And that is a recipe for mediocrity in college football. It doesn't surprise me he's had such a below average record.
Yes, Alabama has won championships due in large part to their defense, and I realize there were some defensive discussions going on here. However, you're moving the goal posts a bit to fit your argument now. No team with a bad defense wins championships and I was specifically responding to your post which was directly making a point about offense. Offense is the foundation of this conversation here.
Until you can statistically prove with verifiable data that which I requested, then I don't think your argument holds much water. I also think you may be surprised how many coaches run relatively 'balanced' offenses and are successful.
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
cm husker said:
Good Lord.
Most teams are pretty average or worse, regardless of the scheme they run. That's called "math."
"Usually they end up pretty average or worse" relative to the entire list of college football offenses. You do realize there's a large (growing) body of college football offenses that have scrapped the outmoded immobile QB-headed "balanced" offenses, right?
I love when you try to get snarky but fail reading comprehension in the process, Guy.
cornographic
Banned
Do our recruits know about the perks?
