Will Commits "Blow-Up" with offers? Rank Higher?

[nebcountry]

Seems like we get a commit and then people make posts that the commit will increase in rankings and "blow-up" with offers.

My honest opinion, I don't know what will happen. But, I do have a computer so I'm planning to watch it this year. I'll only track them after they have committed to NU. I'll only watch for new offers from Power 5 + Notre Dame and increases in Rivals star rankings. A coaching staff that can identify and land talent before everyone else definitely has a recruiting edge.

 

[inspiderman]

Are you not tracking the offers or Bubak, Brokop, and Raridon? They recommitted/stayed committed to Riley, so he must like them as much as he likes the guys he started recruiting.

 

[nebcountry]

I will not track any players that committed before the coaching change. The coaching staff that identified and got them to commit is gone.

 

[inspiderman]

Ok

 

[worldstarhusker]

Johnson was not a 5.7 3star when he committed to NU

 

[nebcountry]

Johnson was not a 5.7 3star when he committed to NU

I think you are correct. I just made the list today, and those are his numbers/offers today. I don't know how to see ratings/commits history, unless one of the linked articles show it (might have been unrated as a JUCO player, but I don't remember).

 

[bigboxes]

You're an empty bias. Strive for better.

 

[Blackshirt316]

So if you don't count those players that commited before the coaching change at Nebraska, are you also not counting players that committed early to all the other schools that changed coaches too?

 

[nothingkevin]

Our QB out of Cali will be moving up

 

[nebcountry]

You're an empty bias. Strive for better.

I haven't heard the term "empty bias". "Empty of bias" is what I am striving for with this compilation (believe it or don't, it's your choice). I will try to update it monthly, if someone knows Johnson's numbers prior to June 2nd I will add a comment. As I see it, the majority believe Riley can identify talent and develop it. I don't want to be on the wrong side of the argument if that is true. The development portion can be and has been discussed based on # of pro's/all-conference/other metrics, and if someone would like to research it more, I'll definitely read it.

Identifying (whether overlooked/underrated/highly ranked) talent can SOMEWHAT be looked at. I may be wrong, but IIRC we offered Jacob Eason after he had already committed to Georgia. A verbal commitment will not stop others from making offers. If our commits look good to others, the others will make offers. An example is the "harbaugh offers after we offer" argument. Underrated talent might be proven with an increase in a rating. Highly ranked talent shows in the star rating. This is June, not the day before signing starts, I have to believe any commitments now thru January-ish are considered talented by the coaching staff.

Concerning uncommitted players (or committed to other schools) with NU offers. If I did the search correctly on this site, it shows 200+ players with offers from NU. I don't have the time to look at every player with an offer, only time to watch after commitment.

Concerning players IDENTIFIED and COMMITTED during the previous regime, are we trying to determine how good pelini was at identifying talent? He was here for 7 seasons, I don't want to devote my time. If someone else wants to track Brokop, Bubak, and Raridon have at it. If these 3 rise in ranking/"blow-up" with offers, then you can thank pelini for identifying, building a relationship, and garnering a commitment. As I said, not on my time.

 

[nebcountry]

It has been about a month since the first post. We've added some commits and lost one commit. Post commit offers and rating changes are in red. If I missed a post commit change, let me know and I'll update accordingly.

 

[ellobo]

nebcounty,

Let me say I think it is great when fans do things like this and applaud you for your effort. Even if it is not about my school I consider recruiting a fun hobby and enjoy not just following my own program but learning more about it overall (including how to put into context things like the rankings).

With that said, I'm not sure what your analysis (in its current form) will show. I certainly don't to disuade you but maybe suggest that you build on this. When a program lands an under-recruited and/or under-evaluated (i.e. by te recruiting sites like Rivals) prospect 6+ months out from signing day if they don't "blow up" that should be a sign of concern. The inverse is that when they do it should be expected and a sign of relief rather than jubilation.

The resources for coaches and the recruiting sites to evaluate kids is limited. However, the number of offers a schools can give out is only bound by the number of kids in an age group on the planet - while schools can only sign a certain number of kids a schools could technically "offer" as many as they like. And when it comes to ratings the sites do not have a set number of stars (or in Rivals case RR) they give out - they could make every kid in America a 5* (6.1 RR) if they felt so inclined to. While at the higher end (5*/6.1) it is somewhat consistent each year I would be willing to bet at the lower end (i.e. 3*/5.5-5.7) the number given out varies greatly and increases significantly (not just marginally) as the year goes on...just a matter of resources and time the evaluators have...simple math...the more time goes on the more kids they can look at.

Which brings it full circle back to the coaches. There are more of them than there are rivals analysts. But again there is not an infinite number of them and while at certain points there will be a shift towards looking more at kids in the following years class they will likely still be looking at some kids (especially those committed to other schools) up until weeks before signing day. I have been told, first hand, that coaches do look at who others offer and while they will make their own evaluations will give a kid an extra look if others seem interested (a snowball effect)...and thus the circle continues as the recruiting site analysts will do the same thing...again told first hand that while they try to do their own evaluations but they will pay extra attention to a kid based on offers...and seeing you are Nebraska (a name program) you should expect them to take a second (well sometimes a first) and harder look to see if they missed something.

So might I suggest you pick a couple/few schools that have a similar profile as NU and recruit from a similar pool of players. It will be impossible to find exact matches but at least it could start to give some idea if your kids are "blowing up" more than others. Just my two pennies.

 

[nebcountry]

Ellobo, I agree with you on some of your points. From the start I knew there could be no comparison without following a second (or more) school. One problem is time. The second problem with a second or even third school to compare to, the sample size is still too small, the time range is only one cycle. Information can still be gained without comparisons. The information to gain is obvious, but with a sample size of one school/one cycle is open to interpretation.

I could always wait until the end of the year and just look at the final result, but the history is lost (what changed from start to finish). And I expect there to be changes as we progress through the year. NU is far removed geographically from the recruiting hot beds. Next year could start out just the same as this year, and could end the same.

I will continue updating my own little chart, but I don't plan on updating this thread any further. There seems to be little or no interest in it.

 

[Rozier 30]

I will not track any players that committed before the coaching change. The coaching staff that identified and got them to commit is gone.

You mean the local kid and the Husker legacy??? The local kid who would play TE for Beck but doesn't want to block so isn't interested in Riley's system. lol You go get em.