Is Everyone OK with a top 25 recruiting class?

[huskerssalts]

And im wih most on here that posted average star ranking is what we should be looking at more then overall team rankings at the end of the recruiting season. Agreed if we sign a smaller class but have high star ranking and we meet our needs, id be stoked about it.

 

[Toms Wife]

And im wih most on here that posted average star ranking is what we should be looking at more then overall team rankings at the end of the recruiting season. Agreed if we sign a smaller class but have high star ranking and we meet our needs, id be stoked about it.

I don't know. If you take 15 and average 3.4 or take 25 and average 3.2 you probably are better off with the larger class because you will have more highly ranked kids. For example, Oregon and Washington both had average star rankings of 3.33 last year...however Oregon took 24 and Washington took 18. Yet Oregon had two more four star players and four more three star players than did Washington.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I don't know. If you take 15 and average 3.4 or take 25 and average 3.2 you probably are better off with the larger class because you will have more highly ranked kids. For example, Oregon and Washington both had average star rankings of 3.33 last year...however Oregon took 24 and Washington took 18. Yet Oregon had two more four star players and four more three star players than did Washington.

The average is the average. You arent taking into account the other 66 players on Washington's roster or the remaining 60 on Oregon's. Since you can only have 85 on scholarship, one or more of Washington's previous classes would presumably have more recruits than Oregon's. If all classes averaged 3.33 stars what difference does it make how many each class has.

 

[Toms Wife]

The average is the average. You arent taking into account the other 66 players on Washington's roster or the remaining 60 on Oregon's. Since you can only have 85 on scholarship, one or more of Washington's previous classes would presumably have more recruits than Oregon's. If all classes averaged 3.33 stars what difference does it make how many each class has.

If you are looking at a five year average that's fine. There are places that do that. However, usually most recruiting sites including this one are comparing individual classes against each other.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

If you are looking at a five year average that's fine. There are places that do that. However, usually most recruiting sites including this one are comparing individual classes against each other.

No one is talking about "most recruiting sites". We are talking about our opinion with regards to average star ranking for each class. You are putting a spin on it that isn't needed.

If every team had to recruit 20, and only 20, players, every year, then total points each year makes sense. But that is not the case, some teams need 25, others 15. Comparing the two is futile, clearly the 25 will win 95% of the time.

 

[Toms Wife]

OK...better tell Rivals to stop defaulting to total points (of the top 20 kids) when you look at team rankings and just look at star average because that is what matters.

 

[timnsun]

OK...better tell Rivals to stop defaulting to total points (of the top 20 kids) when you look at team rankings and just look at star average because that is what matters.

Channeling your wife's math I see...

When you total 85 scholarships, whatever that total star rating is is uniform for all teams. It's comparing apples to apples. Every team in America that is FCS can carry 85 per year... so it's easy to see that whatever the total is over those 85 gives you the best comparison of talent from one team to the next.

If you want to compare individual classes you will be disappointed with this year's class simply because the numbers don't support a high ranking. But if you want to look at total number of recruits the last 4-5 years we will compare much more favorably. It really isn't that hard, but you're making it hard because it's in your nature to troll...

So will you be satisfied with this class if we are ranked 32 this year? That would mean teams that shouldn't finish higher than us, like maybe Minnesota, will. If you don't like that, how should the coaches remedy that to your satisfaction?

 

[Toms Wife]

Channeling your wife's math I see...

When you total 85 scholarships, whatever that total star rating is is uniform for all teams. It's comparing apples to apples. Every team in America that is FCS can carry 85 per year... so it's easy to see that whatever the total is over those 85 gives you the best comparison of talent from one team to the next.

If you want to compare individual classes you will be disappointed with this year's class simply because the numbers don't support a high ranking. But if you want to look at total number of recruits the last 4-5 years we will compare much more favorably. It really isn't that hard, but you're making it hard because it's in your nature to troll...

So will you be satisfied with this class if we are ranked 32 this year? That would mean teams that shouldn't finish higher than us, like maybe Minnesota, will. If you don't like that, how should the coaches remedy that to your satisfaction?

Wow...I could have sworn last Jan/Feb we were all talking about how our 2017 class compared to other schools in terms of recruiting "points" used by rivals and other services. Now, none of that seems to matter since this year our class will be small. Interesting...

 

[timnsun]

Wow...I could have sworn last Jan/Feb we are all talking about how our 2017 class compared to other schools in terms of recruiting "points" used by rivals and other services. Now, none of that seems to matter since this year our class will be small. Interesting...

Well my memory is that there was a lot of emphasis on star average as well.

My guess is that you were banned from the board by that time and simply don't remember the talk about star average like I do.

 

[SnohomishRed]

Channeling your wife's math I see...

When you total 85 scholarships, whatever that total star rating is is uniform for all teams. It's comparing apples to apples. Every team in America that is FCS can carry 85 per year... so it's easy to see that whatever the total is over those 85 gives you the best comparison of talent from one team to the next.

If you want to compare individual classes you will be disappointed with this year's class simply because the numbers don't support a high ranking. But if you want to look at total number of recruits the last 4-5 years we will compare much more favorably. It really isn't that hard, but you're making it hard because it's in your nature to troll...

So will you be satisfied with this class if we are ranked 32 this year? That would mean teams that shouldn't finish higher than us, like maybe Minnesota, will. If you don't like that, how should the coaches remedy that to your satisfaction?

But that is not exactly true. Looking at average stars does not take into account that some kids are over ranked or under ranked to actual play on the field.Numbers of recruits each year is just as important if not more important to how talented your team is. Ohio state takes a full 25 almost every year, Alabama takes that and more. The essence of the walk on program was to take large numbers of kids each year and sift through all of them to find one or two who contribute.

Total numbers of recruits each year matters

 

[timnsun]

But that is not exactly true. Looking at average stars does not take into account that some kids are over ranked or under ranked to actual play on the field.Numbers of recruits each year is just as important if not more important to how talented your team is. Ohio state takes a full 25 almost every year, Alabama takes that and more. The essence of the walk on program was to take large numbers of kids each year and sift through all of them to find one or two who contribute.

Total numbers of recruits each year matters

Of course numbers matter, but we aren't in the business of processing kids out year after year like Ohio State and Alabama. In the end, they still only have 85 on scholarship at any given time. Same as us.

The difference is they are taking more on the front end to maximize their talent, but they still have 85, same as us. Would you advocate we take their approach with recruits?

And regarding overranked or underranked, same goes for every program in America. This is the system we have in place. It's not perfect. But it is the only measuring tool we have at the moment. So unless we start processing large numbers of players every year, this is what it is. I do think the coaches are trying to balance the classes moving forward, but for now this will hurt in terms of numbers.

 

[SnohomishRed]

Of course numbers matter, but we aren't in the business of processing kids out year after year like Ohio State and Alabama. In the end, they still only have 85 on scholarship at any given time. Same as us.

The difference is they are taking more on the front end to maximize their talent, but they still have 85, same as us. Would you advocate we take their approach with recruits?

And regarding overranked or underranked, same goes for every program in America. This is the system we have in place. It's not perfect. But it is the only measuring tool we have at the moment. So unless we start processing large numbers of players every year, this is what it is. I do think the coaches are trying to balance the classes moving forward, but for now this will hurt in terms of numbers.

If it was just Ohio state and Alabama that's one thing but take a look at the teams on top of any conference and in almost all cases they take and sign a lot of recruits each year. Obviously they only can keep 85 but they take much more than that

 

[timnsun]

If it was just Ohio state and Alabama that's one thing but take a look at the teams on top of any conference and in almost all cases they take and sign a lot of recruits each year. Obviously they only can keep 85 but they take much more than that

I'm not arguing against that. But what do you suggest we do? Cut bait like other programs? Cuz that's the only way we will be able to do what you are suggesting.

If we do we can match numbers at least. But I'm not sure if we will do that.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

No one is taking into account the number of early enrollees. It isn't simply cutting bait. Alabama and Ohio St are two programs that kick ass in average star rating. They get great players in and make them better. Nebraska has not done that on that same level. They also do not redshirt their great players, they let them play.

There are many layers to this onion.

 

[timnsun]

No one is taking into account the number of early enrollees. It isn't simply cutting bait. Alabama and Ohio St are two programs that kick ass in average star rating. They get great players in and make them better. Nebraska has not done that on that same level. They also do not redshirt their great players, they let them play.

There are many layers to this onion.

I get that there are a lot more layers to this onion... what would this class look like if we didn't have Key and Gebbia and McQ enroll early? They went towards the previous year, correct?

The redshirting or not business also factors in... I get that. To Snohomish's point, if we recruited more bodies we could swing and miss more often... fair point. Bottom line is that we still only have 85 scholarships at these end of the day.

 

[Nebraska Fan]

For me I believe Eichorst has guided Riley to a new and improved method to address recruiting and it is paying off.

If we go yet another cycle without a top high school recruit at QB and RB it will be a disappointment.

Two highly regarded high school recruits and a lifeline at QB in four cycles will represent poor recruiting.

 

[timnsun]

For me I believe Eichorst has guided Riley to a new and improved method to address recruiting and it is paying off.

If we go yet another cycle without a top high school recruit at QB and RB it will be a disappointment.

Two highly regarded high school recruits and a lifeline at QB in four cycles will represent poor recruiting.

What are you talking about? POB, Lee (not a lifeline, btw, the coaches wanted him and recruited him), Gebbia, if the coaches say this is a small class and we have good numbers at QB (don't forget walk on Bunch) and don't need a QB this cycle, then they are saving a scholarship a for another position. You can say they should always take a QB, and that's fine, there are merits to that argument.

We also have depth at RB. They are still trying to get Pledger, but that's a tall order. If he doesn't come, it's not as if they didn't try.

But I have no flipping clue what you mean about poor recruiting if they don't take a QB or RB this cycle.

It must be really hard for you to give credit to Riley, huh? You're actually crediting Eichorst for recruiting, not Riley... just don't get why you are so against Riley.

 

[Nebraska Fan]

What are you talking about? POB, Lee (not a lifeline, btw, the coaches wanted him and recruited him), Gebbia, if the coaches say this is a small class and we have good numbers at QB (don't forget walk on Bunch) and don't need a QB this cycle, then they are saving a scholarship a for another position. You can say they should always take a QB, and that's fine, there are merits to that argument.

We also have depth at RB. They are still trying to get Pledger, but that's a tall order. If he doesn't come, it's not as if they didn't try.

But I have no flipping clue what you mean about poor recruiting if they don't take a QB or RB this cycle.

It must be really hard for you to give credit to Riley, huh? You're actually crediting Eichorst for recruiting, not Riley... just don't get why you are so against Riley.

Riley is a good people person, a good recruiter and the guy you want in front of a player and his parents. The shape of the recruiting effort IMO is coming more from Eichorst and that's ok. The two of them have a level of trust that's admirable. Few coaches are willing to give up so much control but it's paying off.

Back to the QB situation. Four cycles with two high school players just isn't good and there's no way to sugar coat it.

 

[dockentwo]

Riley is a good people person, a good recruiter and the guy you want in front of a player and his parents. The shape of the recruiting effort IMO is coming more from Eichorst and that's ok. The two of them have a level of trust that's admirable. Few coaches are willing to give up so much control but it's paying off.

Back to the QB situation. Four cycles with two high school players just isn't good and there's no way to sugar coat it.

I believe you are referring to gong forward. because whats being said to you is the QB room is fully stocked. HCMR has bluntly been saying this on recent tour. They have been truly trying to hit another home run at qb this year; but imo its tough, because top kids see what N has stacked up, they want a chance to play early.
They appear to have hit on two hs qb's and then maybe pulled in a potential AA qb transfer through connections, even according to Manning and others. Bunch is a pleasant surprise and fills the room,
he beats out the potential of taking any but a top prospect this year. It would seem easier to recruit next year; with more built in separation between Gebbia and POB and the recruit - if he can't beat them out, he can still play two years. ... After being out talented in 90/91, coach O said they wouldn't recruit below a certain speed and talent level - even if it emptied a roster, it would eventually fill at N with young talent who wanted to play right away. So I believe there is a great rapport with whats going on with the AD and coach - look at all the effort and structure that is going in.
Maybe you guys can help me, I have been wondering if this can't be looked a bit like running an NFL roster ( coach has a background )
We simply are going to let some young players play to play, even if its special teams and spot play, some recruits need to see that you do that. We are also going to use Redshirting to develop our squad, where position and recruit attitude are open to it ( Gebbia ). So HCMR is running his squad and won't run off as many players , there are new rules slowly decreasing this run off advantage. We still play eleven players at a time, so is the question - Is a squad of 85 enough to make those 11's of caliber to whip other top teams, I believe so ?
......... With a statistic similar to 40% of top recruits not making first or second string in their careers; if you cut way down on your misses, you gain a huge advantage. I believe we are walking the walk on this effort this time, building a character squad. Clemson really did have a family feel and beat Alabama, just my impression. I realize they had southern recruiting still.
Coaching is becoming a deciding factor and Wiscy shows what you do with development in the recent past ( tops all in sending in NFL draft grunts ). So with the money all teams are getting in the 10, facilities are averaging out, and young coaches are getting a shot. We have hit some home runs on a couple of assistants recently, top recruiters yes; but looking at their records - I believe we have pulled some top coaches in at the same time. We are getting the skill players. I am not that worried about rb, it will get rectified if a problem, and we have some great potential and certainly role players who can get hot.
GBR

 

[timnsun]

Riley is a good people person, a good recruiter and the guy you want in front of a player and his parents. The shape of the recruiting effort IMO is coming more from Eichorst and that's ok. The two of them have a level of trust that's admirable. Few coaches are willing to give up so much control but it's paying off.

Back to the QB situation. Four cycles with two high school players just isn't good and there's no way to sugar coat it.

How is eichorst shaping recruiting? I don't follow what you mean by this.

And back to the QB situation. Four cycles with 4 QBs (POB, Gebbia, Lee and Bunch) make it easier to pass on QB this year if we aren't getting a top flight guy.

Besides, if I understand you correctly, if we don't get a QB this cycle, it's actually eichorst who should be blamed, since he is the recruiting genius here.

 

[suhnami]

We can all agree that recruiting is going well thus far. But I don't see a way that NU can finish much higher than #20 in the recruiting rankings. It's a numbers game. NU sits at #6 in the 24/7 rankings right now, but we all know it won't stay that way.

If we sign 15, I look at this class as top 30 class. Clemson and Stanford finished in the top 20 with 14 recruits in 2017, but both had two and three five stars respectively in that total. If we sign, say 18, I think we'd have a shot being inside the top 20, but that's unlikely. UCLA finished #20 last year, but had two five stars in the mix.

Any thoughts?

My thought is why do people make posts and assume everyone agrees?

 

[artguy68]

Are you saying there is no correlation to highly rated classes and highly rated teams? There have been numerous articles and links shared that demonstrate a clear relationship. Guess if I was forced too, I would take my chances with classes consistently in the top five.

It is the kind of stat that has no intrinsic meaning. Yes, you want good recruits, but class rankings is never considered by the refs on the playing field, nor it is considered when they are ranking teams during the season. In addition, a team with 26 average recruits will have a higher recruiting class ranking than a team with 15 good recruits. I'd rather have a team that plays well.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Teams that win titles have highly ranked classes. There is a correlation, whether you believe it is intrinsic or not, that's up to you.

 

[TruHusker]

It is the kind of stat that has no intrinsic meaning. Yes, you want good recruits, but class rankings is never considered by the refs on the playing field, nor it is considered when they are ranking teams during the season. In addition, a team with 26 average recruits will have a higher recruiting class ranking than a team with 15 good recruits. I'd rather have a team that plays well.

Not sure how we went from highly rated recruiting classes to the officials but OK. There IS a relationship, and it has been proven with substantial data, here is just one of many articles on the subject. The comparison between 26 and 15 in a class doesn't happen often, this is an unusual year and I think the number of recruits who are calculated is 20 so anything over that is not considered. The definitely data to support that highly ranked classes produce championships - READ the data. The cause and affect is if you recruit better athletes and coach them you will play better on the field - that is not a real shocker. Look at our play on the field the past few years in relationship to our class ranks. You can deny reality all day but there is a relationship and every coach knows it.

 

[artguy68]

Not sure how we went from highly rated recruiting classes to the officials but OK. There IS a relationship, and it has been proven with substantial data, here is just one of many articles on the subject. The comparison between 26 and 15 in a class doesn't happen often, this is an unusual year and I think the number of recruits who are calculated is 20 so anything over that is not considered. The definitely data to support that highly ranked classes produce championships - READ the data. The cause and affect is if you recruit better athletes and coach them you will play better on the field - that is not a real shocker. Look at our play on the field the past few years in relationship to our class ranks. You can deny reality all day but there is a relationship and every coach knows it.

Yes, I read that article and it exactly supports what I am saying. It is effective at predicting the very best teams, but beyond that, not so much.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

You can lead a horse to water.

 

[inWV]

tOSU must follow the same conference rules wrt recruiting as NU. In the past four cycles, they have listed signings from a total of 99 kids. In order to get to 85 without redshirting any kids, 14 of those kids are not on the roster. Assuming some redshirts are used, tOSU has an attrition rate of between 4-5 kids per class.
To compare, we have taken 86 in the past four cycles and have a healthy RS rate.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

tOSU must follow the same conference rules wrt recruiting as NU. In the past four cycles, they have listed signings from a total of 99 kids. In order to get to 85 without redshirting any kids, 14 of those kids are not on the roster. Assuming some redshirts are used, tOSU has an attrition rate of between 4-5 kids per class.
To compare, we have taken 86 in the past four cycles and have a healthy RS rate.

Are you including players who left with eligibility remaining?

 

[jflores]

Not sure how we went from highly rated recruiting classes to the officials but OK. There IS a relationship, and it has been proven with substantial data, here is just one of many articles on the subject. The comparison between 26 and 15 in a class doesn't happen often, this is an unusual year and I think the number of recruits who are calculated is 20 so anything over that is not considered. The definitely data to support that highly ranked classes produce championships - READ the data. The cause and affect is if you recruit better athletes and coach them you will play better on the field - that is not a real shocker. Look at our play on the field the past few years in relationship to our class ranks. You can deny reality all day but there is a relationship and every coach knows it.

Yes, I read that article and it exactly supports what I am saying. It is effective at predicting the very best teams, but beyond that, not so much.

Folk tend to overlook their own message. Lets ask ourselves *why* the best recruiting classes lead to the best national championship outcomes.

One might simply say "its the Jimmies and Joes, duh" forgetting that the coach that made that statement was a pretty damn good coach to boot.

CFB is littered with guys who can recruit. One might look at our own roster with the Williams' who haven't won anything of note anywhere, but are pulling in guys left and right. Tennesse has made a habit of stockpiling southern talent and barely getting bowl eligible.

The reason why Rivals ratings are only accurate for the handful of top title contenders is because the handful of top title contenders have coaches that are excellent recruiters *and* developers of talent.

Rivals ratings matter a whole lot less, for the myriad of coaches who aren't in that rareified air. History says some of them will recruit well and not generally live up to expectation, or like a Kirk Ferentz, generally outperform the general talent level they pull in. Some unlucky bastards, won't be good coaches or recruiters and the results show it.

 

[jflores]

One might argue that Rivals ratings don't *really* matter for most of CFB. There's probably only a core 15-20 schools or so, that will seriously put forth the resources to be a National Title contender (that might be generous).

The rest are playing for winning records and occasional conference title appearance/win.

There aren't enough top tier coaches to support a huge National Title pool.

 

[inWV]

Are you including players who left with eligibility remaining?

I just added the numbers from Rivals. Presumably the numbers correspond to signings. I have no idea as to the particulars of tOSU's attrition. But for NU, I count only 15 of the 25 member 2014 class as on the roster. These kids would be non-RS Seniors this fall. I count 18 of 21 remaining in the next class.
NU redshirts a good chunk of each class it seems. Hard to get big classes when you do that in addition to being less aggressive in terms of having kids "explore other options".

 

[TheOutline]

When a program redshirts a majority of each recruiting class, the chances having a top 15 class decreases. You simply do not have the numbers when you are signing 15-20 to match programs signing 23-28.

Filling needs should always be the key. With the way the rankings are calculated, a school could sign 10 4 star LB and 10 4 star RB and have a top 15 class. Never mind the fact that the school has only 4 OL on scholarship and didn't sign any, they have a top 15 class so all is good. From that standpoint, I think these rankings are pointless. With that said, I believe most coaches recruit to the needs of their program. Take Riley and the need for a kicker, he took a top kicker, and it will effect the overall ranking of the class. He could have committed a position player and got a few more points in the recruiting rankings, but does that really make the class better?

As far as the 15 number this year, yes there may be some attrition through one form or another, but there will also be players awarded scholarships that are walk ons or there could be an incoming transfer. I have said from day 1 that the number will be 15 until it isn't. When/ if it is announced that one of the 2017 recruits didn't qualify, then you add to the 15. When a scholarship junior or younger says he is leaving the program, then you can add to the 15. Until then, you simply can't. Again I am not saying there will not be attrition, I am saying that I don't know where it will come from. This staff is simply not going to commit players when they don't know, FOR SURE, that there will be a scholarship for him. In past years, there have been indications or signs that players have a foot out the door. This year feels a little different to me when it comes to that.

In the end, I think the class ends up about 22-25, with a top 15 average star.

I have read accounts that N Saban will do just that. Not sure if it's true, but those are the stories out there

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I have read accounts that N Saban will do just that. Not sure if it's true, but those are the stories out there

I'm sorry, Saban will do just what? I wrote a lot in that paragraph. Lol

 

[TruHusker]

Folk tend to overlook their own message. Lets ask ourselves *why* the best recruiting classes lead to the best national championship outcomes.

One might simply say "its the Jimmies and Joes, duh" forgetting that the coach that made that statement was a pretty damn good coach to boot.

CFB is littered with guys who can recruit. One might look at our own roster with the Williams' who haven't won anything of note anywhere, but are pulling in guys left and right. Tennesse has made a habit of stockpiling southern talent and barely getting bowl eligible.

The reason why Rivals ratings are only accurate for the handful of top title contenders is because the handful of top title contenders have coaches that are excellent recruiters *and* developers of talent.

Rivals ratings matter a whole lot less, for the myriad of coaches who aren't in that rareified air. History says some of them will recruit well and not generally live up to expectation, or like a Kirk Ferentz, generally outperform the general talent level they pull in. Some unlucky bastards, won't be good coaches or recruiters and the results show it.

Per the highlighted area - apparently Nebraska did not formerly have many of these on staff.

This goes back to the age old question - can you coach up players beyond their given skill level. Some coaches are better at motivating, developing players and building programs but eventually they hit the wall if they don't have the top tier talent. That has been proven over and over. You can go with the chicken and egg theory all day but one would say that Saban at one time was just an average coach. I don't think many are saying that now.

 

[jflores]

Per the highlighted area - apparently Nebraska did not formerly have many of these on staff.

This goes back to the age old question - can you coach up players beyond their given skill level. Some coaches are better at motivating, developing players and building programs but eventually they hit the wall if they don't have the top tier talent. That has been proven over and over. You can go with the chicken and egg theory all day but one would say that Saban at one time was just an average coach. I don't think many are saying that now.

Sure, I'm just saying they aren't some rare breed who only spawn next to Saban.

Its not chicken or egg, is my point.

Its chicken *and* egg.