I think success on the field comes first, coaches need to field teams that consistently manage to exceed recruiting expectations. At some point it becomes a wash if you are getting top 15 classes and finishing top 15 that is probably the area where if you meet expectations you can continue to maintain a quality program. If a team getting mid range classes wants to get a jump they better find a way to put a top notch product on the field for multiple years, if you are Nebraska it may take a few years if you a Boise State you may never get recruiting star rankings that match your success.
Which Comes First - Success or Recruits?
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
Savage Husker
All-Conference
Success, is my opinion. Many reasons out there, but one worth mentioning...
Texas was a mid teens recruiting ranking until VY lead them to a title, then they started getting that top5 team ranking talent coming in. Actually, the recruiting class prior to their title run was ranked 19 (rivals), the lowest of any title team in about last 10-15 years.
Texas was a mid teens recruiting ranking until VY lead them to a title, then they started getting that top5 team ranking talent coming in. Actually, the recruiting class prior to their title run was ranked 19 (rivals), the lowest of any title team in about last 10-15 years.
Way wrong there. Mack brought in stellar recruiting classes from the time he was hired in 1998, including the star studded class that Vince Young was in. While success makes recruiting easier, there are countless example of staffs having recruiting success right off the bat and Mack Brown is one of them (though anyone should be able to recruit to Texas). For further examples, look at other staffs that were hired this year that are already having success.
SouthLincoln Husker
All-American
Recruiting. You have to find the kids that fit your system. I agree with dylan, success make recruiting easier.
Savage Husker
All-Conference
I beg to differ. Yes, you can have a "splash hire" at a "hot" school and get instant recruiting success, but success on the field matters. Yes, Texas had a #1 class in 2002. The following classes that lead to a title? 15/18/20. After they won a title? #5 and better.
Texas had the highest/worst average team ranking for recruiting leading up to their title in last 10-15 years. When the worst recruiting class average leading up to a national championship run is around 12th nationally - 15/18/20 doesn't scream stellar, IMO.
It is a little of both. Success on the field will definitely help with recruiting, but Dantonio has done it gradually. He has scored big time with a lot of 3* recruites that have worked well in his system. He and his staff are great at finding athletes that really work well in there system.
As someone said earlier MSU success correlates well with PSU and Michigan's downturn. I am interested to see how they do without Narduzzi at DC. It wont effect this year's team to much but will start to show up in 2016 and beyond.
I'm not going to spend much time researching this, because I remember clearly that Mack came in and lit the world on fire in recruiting. But here's one link to Tom Lemming' rankings from 1998-2002, and he had Texas in the top 5 for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Two of those as the number one class. So, to act as if Texas only recruited well after they won it all is demonstrably wrong.
They may have had a few lower ranked classes prior to the title. I suspect that relates more to class size, though I don't really know or care. My point stands though that he completely tore it up in recruiting long before he won the title in 2005.
They may have had a few lower ranked classes prior to the title. I suspect that relates more to class size, though I don't really know or care. My point stands though that he completely tore it up in recruiting long before he won the title in 2005.
Savage Husker
All-Conference
I'm not going to, nor will I dismiss that recruiting doesn't doesn't bring success. I am a firm believer in top15 classes being the absolute lowest ranking to be within national title contention. The numbers and evidence is there, you're right.
To hang on to any pride leftover, I have my doubts about nebraska being a top5 recruiting class without seeing results on the field. By no means are we a sexy school with a splash hire.
Hedley Lamarr
All-American
Hedley Lamarr
All-American
Rivals
2004- 50
2005- 5
2006- 20
2007- 13
I don't expect us to consistenly sign top 10 classes but I feel that we can achieve top 15 classes fairly consistently. With an occasional top 5/10
HuskermanMike
Starter
Does anyone else think that making a New Years six bowl helps with recruiting too not necessarily winning the championship?
It's worth noting that the one highly ranked class cally brought in had 31 players total, 12 of them jucos. Hardly a recipe for sustained recruiting success.
I think NU will always have a hard time doing better than 15-20th ranked classes due to location alone. Even under TO, when we were a national power, we often stayed in that range (though he also certainly had some very highly ranked classes). That's why coaching acumen is so important at a place like this. We have to scout better than other places, work harder in recruiting and then out coach them as well.
I think NU will always have a hard time doing better than 15-20th ranked classes due to location alone. Even under TO, when we were a national power, we often stayed in that range (though he also certainly had some very highly ranked classes). That's why coaching acumen is so important at a place like this. We have to scout better than other places, work harder in recruiting and then out coach them as well.