ADVERTISEMENT

Is a top 5 recruiting class in the works?

Here are my thoughts, and I'd appreciate feedback:

1.) I went back and did some research on Osborne and Solich's estimated class rankings, and they were consistently between 25-15. Lots of 3 stars, a smattering of 4 and 5 star players. Every now and then they'd land something even better, but that was very rare. This tells me that if we can consistently land the same, or better, we're going to do just fine.

2.) There was a really funny, well-written article about "The Last Team To Consistently Beat The SEC And What We Can Learn From Them: Nebraska" published by SB Nation a few years ago, and it did a great job of running through how Nebraska used to be so dominant:

- Unique, Consistent Identity: Run a very particular and very physical offense that few teams spent much time learning how to defend. Pair it with a bone-crushing defense. Also, over the course of like 30 years Nebraska had two, TWO coaches.
- Cannon Fodder: Have a huge pool of decent walk-ons from in-state and around the area that don't mind playing on the Scout teams and getting beat up by the starters just to make the program better, overall.
- Boyd Epley: Figured out that strength and conditioning, and getting specific players to do very specific tasks perfectly, was a key to success when you couldn't always recruit freak athletes to your program. He's kind of like the Moneyball guy that way.

3.) Now that the S&C advantages aren't what they used to be due to program parity (though having some of the best facilities in all of college football, still, helps a ton), and now that we're going to be running a balanced, pro-style attack, I think the emphasis needs to be on finding the absolute best players we can (duh), or players with tremendous upsides that we can coach up, and having them WANT to be here. I think the coaches understand this very well, which is why they are turning to social media, California players, and emphasizing the new, sunny identity of the program and its...let's just say "enthusiastic" fan base.

4.) I don't think we should be trying to out-recruit Ohio State or even Michigan. Ohio State has some of, if not the, best 500-mile radius recruiting range in the entire country. Michigan, under Harbaugh, is going to kind of be its own nut-ball show. I view us much more as being like Michigan State, a program that was developed and built patiently into having a strong identity and being able to field teams that can beat almost anyone due to player development, good coaching, and having a strong, mean identity. I actually view us as being able to do Michigan State better than Michigan State does in this respect. No disrespect to the Spartans, I just think we may be able to recruit better right now and thus field slightly better teams, on average, especially on offense (Sparty's D is probably going to always be freaking brutal).
Because you obviously put a great deal of thought into your post I thought you deserved a response even if it was from an "outsider"...well that and I can't sleep:

1) A quick google search uncovered the notion that Osborne won with classes in the 15-25 range is not actually an accurate depiction. Each of his NC teams had at least 2 top 10 classes as a part of those squads. But I think the more important point is that those were the early days of recruiting rankings for fan consumption and while it certainly still is not close to an exact science the industry has come leaps and bounds since then. You simply can't compare. So a more accurate fact to consider is that since the beginning of "The Rivals Era" there has not been a National Champion which didn't either have at least one #1 ranked class (as a part of that team) or two #2 classes. I'm sure that streak will be broken, sooner than later, but that coupled with the fact Osborne didn't win NCs without top 10 classes tells me the odds of winning one if you "rarely" land top ten classes are pretty low.

2) Not much I can say about your point #2 except that what drove NU's success at that time is not relevant right now. A) While the college game has shifted towards the spread the use of a pro-style O isn't nearly as unique as the wishbone was in the 90s. B) The walk-on game has changed - things like (this is just one example) the cost of film and ability to distribute it digitally means more kids who used to end up walking onto the local Big U are now ending up at smaller BCS and FCS programs. In addition, your point about kids willing to get beat up...philosophies have changed and your own coach has been quite outspoken about reducing hitting/tackling in practice. C) I'm certainly not an S&C expert but I'm pretty sure the customization of training, in CFB programs, for both positions and the individual player is the standard now. The one size fits all approach has been dead for at least a decade and investing in the science part of it all (which I don't really understand) is a part of the CFB arms race.

3) I really don't want to sound snotty so my apologies for not thinking of a better way to say this...yes, that is what you want to do...finding (and landing) the best players, coach then up and have them want to be there. That's what everyone is trying to do. As far as social media and using it to create buzz...again yes...that is what...well I wouldn't say everyone is doing it well but it is now a more common part of recruiting.

4) I hate to admit this (as a Michigan fan) but what Dantonio has done in East Lansing is pretty special. But it's not an exact formula that others can just choose to copy. To replicate it you pretty much would have to hire Dantonio because his team is an exact reflection of his personality. Riley has to be himself. I'm not the expert on who Riley is (personality wise)...you guys are...but he's not Dantonio. I know most here don't like Harbaugh but Dantonio is a genuine ahole...I'm talking a flat out jerk (one of their mantras is "60 minutes of unnecessary roughness" as in play dirty...they literally use those words)...and my sparty friends would say the same with a huge smile on their faces because he is their ahole and a damn good coach. I'll leave it at Riley needs to build his own brand of "swagger" at NU.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: blackbones
Because you obviously put a great deal of thought into your post I thought you deserved a response even if it was from an "outsider"...well that and I can't sleep:

1) A quick google search uncovered the notion that Osborne won with classes in the 15-25 range is not actually an accurate depiction. Each of his NC teams had at least 2 top 10 classes as a part of those squads. But I think the more important point is that those were the early days of recruiting rankings for fan consumption and while it certainly still is not close to an exact science the industry has come leaps and bounds since then. You simply can't compare. So a more accurate fact to consider is that since the beginning of "The Rivals Era" there has not been a National Champion which didn't either have at least one #1 ranked class (as a part of that team) or two #2 classes. I'm sure that streak will be broken, sooner than later, but that coupled with the fact Osborne didn't win NCs without top 10 classes tells me the odds of winning one if you "rarely" land top ten classes are pretty low.

2) Not much I can say about your point #2 except that what drove NU's success at that time is not relevant right now. A) While the college game has shifted towards the spread the use of a pro-style O isn't nearly as unique as the wishbone was in the 90s. B) The walk-on game has changed - things like (this is just one example) the cost of film and ability to distribute it digitally means more kids who used to end up walking onto the local Big U are now ending up at smaller BCS and FCS programs. In addition, your point about kids willing to get beat up...philosophies have changed and your own coach has been quite outspoken about reducing hitting/tackling in practice. C) I'm certainly not an S&C expert but I'm pretty sure the customization of training, in CFB programs, for both positions and the individual player is the standard now. The one size fits all approach has been dead for at least a decade and investing in the science part of it all (which I don't really understand) is a part of the CFB arms race.

3) I really don't want to sound snotty so my apologies for not thinking of a better way to say this...yes, that is what you want to do...finding (and landing) the best players, coach then up and have them want to be there. That's what everyone is trying to do. As far as social media and using it to create buzz...again yes...that is what...well I wouldn't say everyone is doing it well but it is now a more common part of recruiting.

4) I hate to admit this (as a Michigan fan) but what Dantonio has done in East Lansing is pretty special. But it's not an exact formula that others can just choose to copy. To replicate it you pretty much would have to hire Dantonio because his team is an exact reflection of his personality. Riley has to be himself. I'm not the expert on who Riley is (personality wise)...you guys are...but he's not Dantonio. I know most here don't like Harbaugh but Dantonio is a genuine ahole...I'm talking a flat out jerk (one of their mantras is "60 minutes of unnecessary roughness" as in play dirty...they literally use those words)...and my sparty friends would say the same with a huge smile on their faces because he is their ahole and a damn good coach. I'll leave it at Riley needs to build his own brand of "swagger" at NU.


Thanks for the response! So, here we go:

1.) I got my stats from here: http://hailvarsity.com/news/college...husker-recruiting-rankings-1987-2012/2013/01/

2.) I pretty much agree with all of your points.

3.) Yup.

4.) I was in no way suggesting we "copy" Michigan State; I am saying, Nebraska as a program is more similar to Michigan State than it is to Michigan and Ohio State. I view those two programs as being the cream of the crop in the Big Ten; Michigan has its history and the allure of players actually going to a fantastic university on scholarship, Ohio State has its long track record of success at football over the years, and they both are situated in the best recruiting ground of the conference and can point at each other as their great enemies to get kids riled up.

What I was suggesting was, Nebraska was a project that was built over years of customizing a program to win despite its natural disadvantages; similarly, Dantonio has done that at Michigan State. And yes, I also agree that they play borderline unacceptably violent football at times and that Dantonio can be a real prick; I remember a couple of years ago when they played Michigan, it was like their defense was out there to actually injure Michigan players rather than just beat them. But you seem to have also settled on the correct conclusion I was trying to get at: We need to build up our own unique identity and sell that hard in order to start climbing back up to being a successful program that regularly competes for the conference championship.

I would view success, in light of all of that, as being able to consistently dominate our own division (going to the championship game 5-6 times every 10 years sounds about right) and winning it every couple of years. Its going to be a while before we can really challenge Ohio State and Michigan is also on the rise, but if you think about it, all we have to do is regularly be able to beat Wisconsin and Iowa. I don't think that's too high a bar to set.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crushinator
Because you obviously put a great deal of thought into your post I thought you deserved a response even if it was from an "outsider"...well that and I can't sleep:

1) A quick google search uncovered the notion that Osborne won with classes in the 15-25 range is not actually an accurate depiction. Each of his NC teams had at least 2 top 10 classes as a part of those squads. But I think the more important point is that those were the early days of recruiting rankings for fan consumption and while it certainly still is not close to an exact science the industry has come leaps and bounds since then. You simply can't compare. So a more accurate fact to consider is that since the beginning of "The Rivals Era" there has not been a National Champion which didn't either have at least one #1 ranked class (as a part of that team) or two #2 classes. I'm sure that streak will be broken, sooner than later, but that coupled with the fact Osborne didn't win NCs without top 10 classes tells me the odds of winning one if you "rarely" land top ten classes are pretty low.

2) Not much I can say about your point #2 except that what drove NU's success at that time is not relevant right now. A) While the college game has shifted towards the spread the use of a pro-style O isn't nearly as unique as the wishbone was in the 90s. B) The walk-on game has changed - things like (this is just one example) the cost of film and ability to distribute it digitally means more kids who used to end up walking onto the local Big U are now ending up at smaller BCS and FCS programs. In addition, your point about kids willing to get beat up...philosophies have changed and your own coach has been quite outspoken about reducing hitting/tackling in practice. C) I'm certainly not an S&C expert but I'm pretty sure the customization of training, in CFB programs, for both positions and the individual player is the standard now. The one size fits all approach has been dead for at least a decade and investing in the science part of it all (which I don't really understand) is a part of the CFB arms race.

3) I really don't want to sound snotty so my apologies for not thinking of a better way to say this...yes, that is what you want to do...finding (and landing) the best players, coach then up and have them want to be there. That's what everyone is trying to do. As far as social media and using it to create buzz...again yes...that is what...well I wouldn't say everyone is doing it well but it is now a more common part of recruiting.

4) I hate to admit this (as a Michigan fan) but what Dantonio has done in East Lansing is pretty special. But it's not an exact formula that others can just choose to copy. To replicate it you pretty much would have to hire Dantonio because his team is an exact reflection of his personality. Riley has to be himself. I'm not the expert on who Riley is (personality wise)...you guys are...but he's not Dantonio. I know most here don't like Harbaugh but Dantonio is a genuine ahole...I'm talking a flat out jerk (one of their mantras is "60 minutes of unnecessary roughness" as in play dirty...they literally use those words)...and my sparty friends would say the same with a huge smile on their faces because he is their ahole and a damn good coach. I'll leave it at Riley needs to build his own brand of "swagger" at NU.
1. Not sure what rankings you were using but they were not very structured back then to be sure 0- in the run up to 1995, 91 thru 94 in those 4 classes we took 26 Nebraska kids - comparing that to now that alone would have put those classes on the fringe of 25 - NE rarely produces 26 highly rates kids
2. Yes what we did in the 90's will be impossible or improbable to duplicate but a consistent identity will go a long way towards curing this program. That and running a style of offense we can recruit to year in year out
3. NC
4. We need nasty back especially on defense
 
  • Like
Reactions: DudznSudz
Thanks for the response! So, here we go:

1.) I got my stats from here: http://hailvarsity.com/news/college...husker-recruiting-rankings-1987-2012/2013/01/

2.) I pretty much agree with all of your points.

3.) Yup.

4.) I was in no way suggesting we "copy" Michigan State; I am saying, Nebraska as a program is more similar to Michigan State than it is to Michigan and Ohio State. I view those two programs as being the cream of the crop in the Big Ten; Michigan has its history and the allure of players actually going to a fantastic university on scholarship, Ohio State has its long track record of success at football over the years, and they both are situated in the best recruiting ground of the conference and can point at each other as their great enemies to get kids riled up.

What I was suggesting was, Nebraska was a project that was built over years of customizing a program to win despite its natural disadvantages; similarly, Dantonio has done that at Michigan State. And yes, I also agree that they play borderline unacceptably violent football at times and that Dantonio can be a real prick; I remember a couple of years ago when they played Michigan, it was like their defense was out there to actually injure Michigan players rather than just beat them. But you seem to have also settled on the correct conclusion I was trying to get at: We need to build up our own unique identity and sell that hard in order to start climbing back up to being a successful program that regularly competes for the conference championship.

I would view success, in light of all of that, as being able to consistently dominate our own division (going to the championship game 5-6 times every 10 years sounds about right) and winning it every couple of years. Its going to be a while before we can really challenge Ohio State and Michigan is also on the rise, but if you think about it, all we have to do is regularly be able to beat Wisconsin and Iowa. I don't think that's too high a bar to set.
Just touching on point #1 briefly: From your link the first ten years listed (starts in 1987 and thus those ten classes would be a good representation of how Osborne's NC teams where built) NU had 5 top 10 classes. That's 50% of his classes being top 10 so I guess we have a very different definition of rarely.

Now on to your last point. I guess I also have different point of view for what the N brand stands for...or maybe a different view for what the MSU brand stands for but my point will be that I don't see you guys as similar. Last year MSU put together it's best recruiting class (on paper) that I ever remember them having. It took Dantonio close to a decade of winning, including multiple conference titles, to get to the point where the brand he represents was able to do that. Riley looks like he will match that recruiting success in (full) year two and coming off a losing season. Maybe he is just a better recruiter than Dantonio...or maybe the NU brand still has more value than you are giving it credit for?

I've seen people, on this board, say things like: "The recruits today weren't alive the last time NU won an NC." Well first, today's recruit's parents weren't alive the last time MSU won one. And my own program has the same issue as you, since our last NC was literally the same year as yours, and yet you think your program is closer resemblance to MSU than Michigan which literally shares a factoid.

You (as do many here) also like to point out your geographic disadvantage...or for this argument's sake that a school like Michigan is at a geographic advantage (for this discussion the semantics matter). Last year Michigan landed zero kids from Ohio and actually took more kids from just the state of NJ alone than it did from the entire Midwest combined which includes it's home state. Michigan does border Ohio but the state of Michigan itself is not a hotbed and Ohio is not Cali, Fla or TX. More importantly, the hotbed just south of Michigan is dominated by a school one year removed from a NC (and has owned us on the field for quite awhile), we share the state with MSU and what is arguable the most historic program is actually closer in distance to some of the states top players as Notre Dame is near the Michigan boarder. On the other hand NU is big brother (well more a single child) in it's own state and also to it's boarder states.

Now it would disingenuous of me to completely dismiss the location factor (I don't exactly envy where your school is located in relation to recruits) but I do think you are way, way overstating it as what separates you from some other schools. Last year Michigan did the bulk of it's recruiting outside its 500 or whatever mile radius (sound familiar? So did ND and I'm sure some other schools as well) and landed a top 5 class. In your argument of why Michigan is different you state the 'allure a fantastic university.' I take that as you mean our academic reputation. Thanks for complimenting my school but the reality is that 9 times out of 10 when a top recruit (we are in on) claims academics are at the top of his list they usually follow that up with by releasing a top 5 of something like Michigan, Alabama, Auburn, Clemson and tOSU. I'm not saying the kids are lying about education being important but I do believe they are talking more about things like academic support, being able to graduate, simply going to a tier one national school vs. some regional local U, etc....99 times out of 100 I'm pretty sure they are not coming to Michigan because we have one of the top engineering schools in the country.

With that said, we do use our academic rankings as a selling tool. It is a part of a multi-layered presentation to show the excellence of the Michigan brand. It is who we are...we are certainly not "apologetic" about it and I wouldn't even say we are that humble about it either. But neither are the Bamas, Auburns, Clemsons, FSUs, etc. They tell their stories like it is the greatest thing to ever happen. And if the "cut ups" I've seen posted on this board (NU #3 in OL drafted, etc.) are any indication that is what your staff is doing...seems to be working a bit doesn't it?

I'll try to get this little essay to end...When Dantonio took over MSU he actually embraced the whole little brother thing...he tapped into the disrespect thing. But here is the thing, while Dantanio has an incredible eye for talent his approach didn't really work all that well when trying to close top rated recruits. But to be fair, if he tried to go toe to toe with the tradition programs his story wouldn't have added up. With some success, he has now totally changed his recruiting message to others can talk the talk but we walk the walk and now he is starting to get his share of higher rated guys...still not at a "blueblood" level though...

I guess my point is NU already has it's story. You are a "blueblood program"...kings of your state and surrounding area...among the leaders in NC, AAs, draft picks etc. Your recent history means you probably can't recruit at a level of Alabama or tOSU just yet...but I think you are selling your own program short by saying you have more in common with MSU.
 
Just touching on point #1 briefly: From your link the first ten years listed (starts in 1987 and thus those ten classes would be a good representation of how Osborne's NC teams where built) NU had 5 top 10 classes. That's 50% of his classes being top 10 so I guess we have a very different definition of rarely.

Now on to your last point. I guess I also have different point of view for what the N brand stands for...or maybe a different view for what the MSU brand stands for but my point will be that I don't see you guys as similar. Last year MSU put together it's best recruiting class (on paper) that I ever remember them having. It took Dantonio close to a decade of winning, including multiple conference titles, to get to the point where the brand he represents was able to do that. Riley looks like he will match that recruiting success in (full) year two and coming off a losing season. Maybe he is just a better recruiter than Dantonio...or maybe the NU brand still has more value than you are giving it credit for?

I've seen people, on this board, say things like: "The recruits today weren't alive the last time NU won an NC." Well first, today's recruit's parents weren't alive the last time MSU won one. And my own program has the same issue as you, since our last NC was literally the same year as yours, and yet you think your program is closer resemblance to MSU than Michigan which literally shares a factoid.

You (as do many here) also like to point out your geographic disadvantage...or for this argument's sake that a school like Michigan is at a geographic advantage (for this discussion the semantics matter). Last year Michigan landed zero kids from Ohio and actually took more kids from just the state of NJ alone than it did from the entire Midwest combined which includes it's home state. Michigan does border Ohio but the state of Michigan itself is not a hotbed and Ohio is not Cali, Fla or TX. More importantly, the hotbed just south of Michigan is dominated by a school one year removed from a NC (and has owned us on the field for quite awhile), we share the state with MSU and what is arguable the most historic program is actually closer in distance to some of the states top players as Notre Dame is near the Michigan boarder. On the other hand NU is big brother (well more a single child) in it's own state and also to it's boarder states.

Now it would disingenuous of me to completely dismiss the location factor (I don't exactly envy where your school is located in relation to recruits) but I do think you are way, way overstating it as what separates you from some other schools. Last year Michigan did the bulk of it's recruiting outside its 500 or whatever mile radius (sound familiar? So did ND and I'm sure some other schools as well) and landed a top 5 class. In your argument of why Michigan is different you state the 'allure a fantastic university.' I take that as you mean our academic reputation. Thanks for complimenting my school but the reality is that 9 times out of 10 when a top recruit (we are in on) claims academics are at the top of his list they usually follow that up with by releasing a top 5 of something like Michigan, Alabama, Auburn, Clemson and tOSU. I'm not saying the kids are lying about education being important but I do believe they are talking more about things like academic support, being able to graduate, simply going to a tier one national school vs. some regional local U, etc....99 times out of 100 I'm pretty sure they are not coming to Michigan because we have one of the top engineering schools in the country.

With that said, we do use our academic rankings as a selling tool. It is a part of a multi-layered presentation to show the excellence of the Michigan brand. It is who we are...we are certainly not "apologetic" about it and I wouldn't even say we are that humble about it either. But neither are the Bamas, Auburns, Clemsons, FSUs, etc. They tell their stories like it is the greatest thing to ever happen. And if the "cut ups" I've seen posted on this board (NU #3 in OL drafted, etc.) are any indication that is what your staff is doing...seems to be working a bit doesn't it?

I'll try to get this little essay to end...When Dantonio took over MSU he actually embraced the whole little brother thing...he tapped into the disrespect thing. But here is the thing, while Dantanio has an incredible eye for talent his approach didn't really work all that well when trying to close top rated recruits. But to be fair, if he tried to go toe to toe with the tradition programs his story wouldn't have added up. With some success, he has now totally changed his recruiting message to others can talk the talk but we walk the walk and now he is starting to get his share of higher rated guys...still not at a "blueblood" level though...

I guess my point is NU already has it's story. You are a "blueblood program"...kings of your state and surrounding area...among the leaders in NC, AAs, draft picks etc. Your recent history means you probably can't recruit at a level of Alabama or tOSU just yet...but I think you are selling your own program short by saying you have more in common with MSU.


Haha, I'm actually not going to argue with that.

I suppose its worth noting that the reason why a lot of us on this board seem so twacked out over football success is we are fans of a program that was frequently talked about as an underdog vis a vis the Florida programs that used to usually whip us in bowl games, until we finally emerged as dominant in the last part of Tom Osborne's career. So, we have that mentality of "underdog," though I admit, similar to the Boston Red Sox, it's maybe more myth than fact (when the entire resources of a state are poured into a football program that is the only game in town and everyone here is obsessed with football, it's hard to argue that you're really an underdog).

In addition, we also saw our program peak at being really untouchable in 1995-96 (frequently talked about as the most dominant college football team to ever play the game...by the way, as insanely good as that team was, I personally think that in 1997 Michigan and Nebraska should have had a final championship game, and I actually think Michigan may have beaten us that year for the title had we done so) to going into an absolute tailspin and still not having recovered. You're right, Michigan experienced something similar (though fortunately for you guys, way less dramatic), but for us, not having won a conference championship since 1999 is really, really incredible given the state our program was in prior to 2003. That's how far we've fallen.

So, yeah, maybe the MSU comparison doesn't hold perfectly; I was simply stating that in terms of rebuilding a decimated program, the MSU model of really starting from the ground up and building a new identity could be a good tactic. You have a point though; maybe that's a bit extreme. This is a program with 5 titles and a long, long history of winning. Perhaps it needs a shot in the arm, rather than a full rebuild. I dunno, that's the point of speculating on these forums.

Perhaps a better comparison is Alabama? They were pretty irrelevant for about 20 years after being a really dominant team for decades. Then they hire Nick Saban, figure out how to get away with some of the most insane recruiting I've ever seen, and boom, dynasty. *shrug*
 
Most of the things that are mentioned in recruiting and football success threads about why a school has advantages or disadvantages are true to some extent. But the reality is that is that it starts and ends wincing a great coach, or at least a coach who is a great fit. That's why Saban and Meyer are able to do things that other coaches, successful coaches weren't able to achieve the same level of success at Alabama, Florida, or OSU. It's why Dantonio is doing what he is at MSU. It's why Texas A&M is recruiting top prospects from the Lone Star state, Baylor and TCU talk playoffs, and Texas isn't.

You guys seem to have a great deal of faith in the current coaching staff. If true (and I have no reason to say it isn't) Nebraska will be contending for Recruiting and actual championships. If not this year, then soon.
 
You guys seem to have a great deal of faith in the current coaching staff. If true (and I have no reason to say it isn't) Nebraska will be contending for Recruiting and actual championships. If not this year, then soon.
I wouldn't say I have faith. I would say the present staff is more professional and Riley is certainly better suited in temperament for NU's program. They are trying some things in recruiting and perhaps player development that are interesting. It remains to be seen as to whether this group of coaches has what it takes to get it done in Lincoln. But they are the coaches of my team, so I am behind them 100%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timnsun
I wouldn't say I have faith. I would say the present staff is more professional and Riley is certainly better suited in temperament for NU's program. They are trying some things in recruiting and perhaps player development that are interesting. It remains to be seen as to whether this group of coaches has what it takes to get it done in Lincoln. But they are the coaches of my team, so I am behind them 100%.
The last four games showed me they have what it takes to get it done.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT