Why recruiting matters, and the importance of signing day

[Husker Psycho]

What's happening here is the same thing that always happens when problems with the Nebraska football program come up.

A group of people here attempt the hide and sweep the problems under the rug and hope that no one will notice.

Of course opposing coaches and programs notice it. Urban Meyer notices it... Harbaugh notices it... Michigan States coaches noticed it. Those coaches and programs cleaned our clock this year in recruiting. Those programs are well on their way to bigger and better results from their football programs. We aren't.

Nebraska had a loosing season and only landed 4 elite players in this years class. Recruits noticed it too.

Everyone noticed it but a few people with an agenda to hide the truth and to advocate for not holding those responsible accountable.

The hubris and crazy lack of accountability in our football program in beyond belief.

Really???? MSU cleaned our clock in recruiting?

Nebraska

24th ranked class

21 players

.8707 average rating

218.54 class score

5th in Big Ten

MSU

22nd ranked class

19 players

.8852 average rating

230.67 class score

4th in Big Ten

That's cleaning our clock?

Thanks for proving my point. You're one of those who are attempting to hide the truth.

Michigan State landed 10 elite recruits in this years class. And for this year... they met the Elite Player Ratio with 10 elite players versus 8 average players. That's two and one half times as many elite players as we landed this year. Fact and truth.

Nebraska only landed 4 elite players and came no where near the Elite Player Ratio.

Yes, Michigan State along with Michigan an Ohio State... cleaned our clock.

Why are you trying to hide things ? It's not good for the program so why are you trying to do that ?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Actually, thats really 9 to 5 elite players (if you are going to use a 4* or above to define that) according to 247 composite which I value much more than other sites.

I never said they didn't have a better class. But, I had issues with you claiming they...."cleaned our clock".

They simply didn't.

I am not hiding anything. I put the stats out there for everyone to see. They have a slightly better class. They didn't "clean our clocks.".

 

[Husker Psycho]

Actually, thats really 9 to 5 elite players (if you are going to use a 4* or above to define that) according to 247 composite which I value much more than other sites.

I never said they didn't have a better class. But, I had issues with you claiming they...."cleaned our clock".

They simply didn't.

I am not hiding anything. I put the stats out there for everyone to see. They have a slightly better class. They didn't "clean our clocks.".

Rivals is the elite of the recruiting services with the most accurate rankings of players.

I go by Rivals.

And yes... Michigan State cleaned our clock and yes you are attempting to hide that. Hiding the truth is not good for our program and anyone doing that is not good for our program. Why are you always attempting to hide the truth from everyone ?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Why are you always attempting to hide the truth from everyone ?

Statements like this make you truly sound Psycho.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Actually, thats really 9 to 5 elite players (if you are going to use a 4* or above to define that) according to 247 composite which I value much more than other sites.

I never said they didn't have a better class. But, I had issues with you claiming they...."cleaned our clock".

They simply didn't.

I am not hiding anything. I put the stats out there for everyone to see. They have a slightly better class. They didn't "clean our clocks.".

Rivals is the elite of the recruiting services with the most accurate rankings of players.

I go by Rivals.

And yes... Michigan State cleaned our clock and yes you are attempting to hide that. Why are you always attempting to hide the truth from everyone ?

I put the information out for people to see and I'm hiding things?

Interesting.

I even said they had a slightly better class than us.

And, I'm still "hiding things".

So, if I don't use alarming terminology and act like I should be in panic mode because MSU "cleaned our clock"......I'm hiding things?

Heck, I wouldn't even use that terminology when looking at PSU which ended up 19th in the nation with an average player ranking of .8809.

Yes, they have a slightly better class than us. They got one 5* player. Without him their class average is .8753 compared to .8707. They did get him so...yes....they have a slightly better class than us. But...I guess I'm hiding things if I don't use alarming terminology.

Am I part of a vast conspiracy trying to hide reality from the masses?

 

[Husker Psycho]

Why are you always attempting to hide the truth from everyone ?

Statements like this make you truly sound Psycho.

Nope... just an honest Nebraska fan.

Hiding the truth is one of the many things that has done great harm to our program.

A perfect example is when the strength and conditioning program stopped publishing the results of the performance testing of our players in an obvious attempt to hide the lower results they were getting as a result of poor recruiting. That was bad for our program because like all this other hiding stuff... it stopped accountability.

None other that Boyd Epley himself made comments about this just recently.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Soooo.....looking at your amazing Rivals site. (Which I think is a joke looking at either Scout or Rivals by themselves.)

MSU got 10 4* players. I'm assuming you are using those as the definition of elite.

You claim 11. Are you trying to hide something? Why are you trying to hide something?

Anyway.

MSU average for those top ten recruits is 5.85

Nebraska's average for their top ten recruits is 5.75.

Is there some amazingly HUGE difference between these two? I think not. Is MSUs better...well....obviously their average is higher so yes. But, pardon me if I don't get all chocked up with shock that they are so amazingly better than us.

The reason is, even though we have fewer 4* players, the rest of our top ten are barely below the point of having that 4th star. Meaning, there isn't much difference.

Oh boy.....I'm assuming I'm hiding something again.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Do you think ANY Nebraska fans are under the illusion that we scored an elite recruiting class?

Or is it a more honest truth that things aren't quite as doomed and hysterical as you're trying to make them?

 

[Husker Psycho]

Soooo.....looking at your amazing Rivals site. (Which I think is a joke looking at either Scout or Rivals by themselves.)

MSU got 10 4* players. I'm assuming you are using those as the definition of elite.

You claim 11. Are you trying to hide something? Why are you trying to hide something?

Anyway.

MSU average for those top ten recruits is 5.85

Nebraska's average for their top ten recruits is 5.75.

Is there some amazingly HUGE difference between these two? I think not. Is MSUs better...well....obviously their average is higher so yes. But, pardon me if I don't get all chocked up with shock that they are so amazingly better than us.

The reason is, even though we have fewer 4* players, the rest of our top ten are barely below the point of having that 4th star. Meaning, there isn't much difference.

Oh boy.....I'm assuming I'm hiding something again.

Your right it's 10. I mistyped that. So I edited my post above.

10 elite players is two and one half times more elite players than we got... and they met the Elite Player Ratio... we didn't come anywhere close.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Ignoring the rest of my post? Are you trying to hide things?

 

[Enhance]

Couple that misleading statistic with the fact that they are often wildly wrong in conference championships and the top 25, and most of us see that the recruiting services are pretty useless.

I may have listened to someone 10-15 years ago who felt that recruiting rankings didn't mean much, but the amount time, effort and research that goes into recruiting services today dwarfs even what was being done five years ago.

Nobody will say that recruiting rankings are always accurate. But, the only reason any one would deny the value of recruiting rankings is because they simply refuse to believe, comprehend or accept the facts that are put in front of them. It would be ignorance and stubbornness and nothing more.

I suggest reading this article. http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter

Some interesting tidbits.

The 2014 College Football Playoff featured three of the top four rosters according to the recruiting rankings. Based on the last five classes, Alabama had the No. 1 roster in the nation in ‘14, Florida State was No. 2 and Ohio State was No. 4 nationally. Oregon wasn’t far behind with the 14th-ranked roster in America.

The good folks at SB Nation — Matt Hinton and Bud Elliott — have done marvelous work breaking down the statistics as it relates to recruiting rankings. I suggest reading the articles, but the gist of their research reveals two telling and undeniable truths: 1) Teams with better recruiting classes win more games and 2) players with more stars are more likely to be drafted.

Elliott provides the real data. The ratios indicate that four- and five-star recruits are 995 percent more likely to be drafted in the first round than a three- or two-star prospect. Additionally, based on the 2014 NFL Draft, a five-star recruit has a 60 percent chance of getting drafted (16 of 27) and a four-star has a 20 percent opportunity (77 of 395). Meanwhile, three-star recruits have just a 5.5 percent chance (92 of 1644) and two-stars/unranked players have less than a three-percent likelihood of getting drafted (71 of 2,434).

Couple that misleading statistic with the fact that they are often wildly wrong in conference championships and the top 25, and most of us see that the recruiting services are pretty useless.

I may have listened to someone 10-15 years ago who felt that recruiting rankings didn't mean much, but the amount time, effort and research that goes into recruiting services today dwarfs even what was being done five years ago.

Nobody will say that recruiting rankings are always accurate. But, the only reason any one would deny the value of recruiting rankings is because they simply refuse to believe, comprehend or accept the facts that are put in front of them. It would be ignorance and stubbornness and nothing more.

I suggest reading this article. http://athlonsports.com/college-football/dont-deny-climate-change-recruiting-rankings-matter

Some interesting tidbits.

The 2014 College Football Playoff featured three of the top four rosters according to the recruiting rankings. Based on the last five classes, Alabama had the No. 1 roster in the nation in ‘14, Florida State was No. 2 and Ohio State was No. 4 nationally. Oregon wasn’t far behind with the 14th-ranked roster in America.

The good folks at SB Nation — Matt Hinton and Bud Elliott — have done marvelous work breaking down the statistics as it relates to recruiting rankings. I suggest reading the articles, but the gist of their research reveals two telling and undeniable truths: 1) Teams with better recruiting classes win more games and 2) players with more stars are more likely to be drafted.

Elliott provides the real data. The ratios indicate that four- and five-star recruits are 995 percent more likely to be drafted in the first round than a three- or two-star prospect. Additionally, based on the 2014 NFL Draft, a five-star recruit has a 60 percent chance of getting drafted (16 of 27) and a four-star has a 20 percent opportunity (77 of 395). Meanwhile, three-star recruits have just a 5.5 percent chance (92 of 1644) and two-stars/unranked players have less than a three-percent likelihood of getting drafted (71 of 2,434).

Enhance,

No one is saying that recruiting is unimportant. I'm simply saying that the recruiting rankings are not as consistently accurate or predictive as people are claiming.

I didn't say recruiting is unimportant either - however, you said "recruiting services are pretty useless." A direct quote that quite literally states you don't think they have any real value. That's why I can't really get into the rest of your response here because the second sentence I just quoted is directly contradicted by the stats I provided. I don't understand what you're trying to argue because we're talking about how recruiting talent translates to victories.

Teams with better recruiting classes win more games. Undeniable fact. That's why Tulane doesn't win as many games as LSU. That's why Minnesota doesn't win as many games as Ohio State. Are there other factors at play? Absolutely. But recruiting rankings have undeniable, verifiable statistics to prove their value. Your attempts to focus on the other 2/3 of the teams ignores the reality of the situation - the other 2/3 of teams are where they are in large part due to their recruiting.

And, again, recruiting services 25 years ago are nowhere near where they are today. Recruiting services five years ago aren't near where they are today. If you went up to the paid professionals who work on recruiting services now and told them the recruiting evaluation process 25 years ago was similar to how it is today, even for the top 50-to-100 recruits, they'd laugh in your face.

 

[cm husker]

Services have no real value.

Recruiting itself is quite important.

 

[cm husker]

How many paid professionals do you think are doing it now? Very few make more than $10k a year.

These are not professionals. And they often just follow the reported offers.

As I said, a reasonably knowledgable fb fan could make a guess based list of the top 20 classes in a given year and end up being as accurate as the services themselves when it comes to team rankings.

Anything that is not performing better than educated guessing is pretty useless as a tool.

 

[wanderful]

Why are you always attempting to hide the truth from everyone ?

Statements like this make you truly sound Psycho.

Nope... just an honest Nebraska fan.

Hiding the truth is one of the many things that has done great harm to our program.

A perfect example is when the strength and conditioning program stopped publishing the results of the performance testing of our players in an obvious attempt to hide the lower results they were getting as a result of poor recruiting. That was bad for our program because like all this other hiding stuff... it stopped accountability.

None other that Boyd Epley himself made comments about this just recently.

I'm in agreement with Guy Chamberlin on this one. HuskerPsycho, you might be completely correct in your point about Elite Recruit Ratios, but when you use language like this, you come across as paranoid and people are less likely to take you seriously.

 

[Enhance]

Services have no real value.

Recruiting itself is quite important.

I provided an article and undeniable statistical proof that the rankings created by recruiting services are valuable. The services create the rankings that are then used to judge the talent, and those rankings (more often then not) are proving the value of rankings and recruiting services. I don't understand how or why this is difficult for you to see.

How many paid professionals do you think are doing it now? Very few make more than $10k a year.

These are not professionals. And they often just follow the reported offers.

As I said, a reasonably knowledgable fb fan could make a guess based list of the top 20 classes in a given year and end up being as accurate as the services themselves when it comes to team rankings.

Anything that is not performing better than educated guessing is pretty useless as a tool.

The bolded is reason enough for you to probably not offer any further insight into the situation. Part of my career involves work and interaction with recruiting services, analysts, recruiting video services and more. ESPN has people whose full time jobs are to report on recruiting. ESPN has dozens of people working in their talent evaluation department nationwide - maybe more, and ESPN only recently started doing their own recruiting rankings in the last 10-15 years. 24/7 sports is a recent addition to the recruiting service game. Rivals was only created in 1998. All of these corporations employee people, full time, to take part in evaluating recruits and creating the rankings. They ARE NOT paying these people chump change and they do not simply rely on reported offers, though that can sometimes play a factor.

If you think what is happening today in any way compares to what recruiting services were like 25 years ago then I have a wonderful bridge to sell you.