ADVERTISEMENT

Looks like Michael Lynn (OL from Colorado) in N

Sure, it makes good sense to me. Expecting a four win program to immediately compete with Ohio State, Alabama, etc for recruiting rankings is just silly.

It took TO 22 years to win a NC, it took Devaney 9 years to win a NC. NU hasn't won a conference title for 18 years. We have a long, LONG ways to go even with an excellent HC & staff.

So yes, essentially people have to lower their expectations for the near future. I fully agree that it's reasonable to expect substantial improvement in recruiting for years 3/4/5. But "now" before SF has even coached one game? That's just crazy compadre'.

Give a little time my friend.....my bet is that recruiting & player development will soon enough reach the roof. Hang in there......you'll love it!

I don't disagree with you on the ramp up time needed. I think the influx at the end of the last cycle may be sustainable. We shall see what the class looks like in February. Regardless, you don't win titles with your best players being freshmen and sophomores. Your leadership needs to come from seniors and juniors making plays. When last year's class is seniors and this years class is juniors, that's when we'll start to be dangerous, nationally. But we need to hover around top 15 class on average if we want to talk about national championships.
 
What were UCFs chances against mighty auburn last year.....? Did ucf have that 45% how about auburn?
If you literally just read the article this has been explained. It doesn’t compute how teams will play against one another or anything of the such. Just national titles. That is it. Last year there were 10 teams that had above 50% blue chip ratios: Alabama, OSU, AUBURN, Clemson, Georgia, Notre Dame, LSU, FSU, USC, and Michigan. 3/4 of the playoff teams were from those 10 teams, and the final 2 both were. Oklahoma could have bucked the trend, but failed.

This year, the metric predicts the same teams above, plus Oklahoma, Texas, PSU, and Miami. It is basically saying if you want to bet on who will win the NC, there are your 14 contenders.
 
You're sensitivity about perceived criticism of HCSF is causing you to overreact. Tuco isn't saying Frost isn't the guy. He said the current level he's recruiting at isn't high enough to win a national championship. Is he wrong? It's okay to agree and still completely support Frost.

I'm a "star gazer" because I don't believe in mining Western Nebraska for all the diamonds in the rough needed to win a title?

Haha.....ok, I sincerely apologize for being harsh. I really mean that. Tuco is an extremely sharp dude for sure and he's another hard-core Husker guy. I know that.

He may or may not be correct about our recruiting not being good enough to win a NC. But geeesh......maybe before worrying about winning NCs we should first concern ourselves with getting a winning season? Maybe even not getting run over like a Mercedes Benz over a paper clip?

I think it would take a real-deal miracle to achieve 45% 4 & 5 star recruiting with our recent horrible results on the field of play. We simply must reach at least a somewhat competent level of success first.

It'll take awhile is my bet.
 
The thought of national championships shouldnt even be on our mind until we start fighting on why a majority of our recruits are 4* when they are clearly a 5. Thats when you know we are building an elite level team a year at a time. These 3* kids are building blocks for a servicable big ten west team, nothing more. You wanna play with the big fish you gotta net the big fish. I will lay some dough out that in the next 4 years the national champion each year will fall into that 43% category or higher - and none of those teams will be nebraska. However you will see a nebraska team that is pulling itself up the rung each and every year and the recruiting will come up with it.
 
Haha.....ok, I sincerely apologize for being harsh. I really mean that. Tuco is an extremely sharp dude for sure and he's another hard-core Husker guy. I know that.

He may or may not be correct about our recruiting not being good enough to win a NC. But geeesh......maybe before worrying about winning NCs we should first concern ourselves with getting a winning season? Maybe even not getting run over like a Mercedes Benz over a paper clip?

I think it would take a real-deal miracle to achieve 45% 4 & 5 star recruiting with our recent horrible results on the field of play. We simply must reach at least a somewhat competent level of success first.

It'll take awhile is my bet.
We're good. I may have misunderstood your tone. In which case, maybe that makes me the sensitive one. :)

When it comes to the timing, I lean more your direction than Tuco's. I understand both sides of that debate, but I tend to be more conservative on the expectation side than most. I don't know if I'm wrong or right. I also wanted to be more patient with Riley, but we're learning that wasn't the right choice.
 
The thought of national championships shouldnt even be on our mind until we start fighting on why a majority of our recruits are 4* when they are clearly a 5. Thats when you know we are building an elite level team a year at a time. These 3* kids are building blocks for a servicable big ten west team, nothing more. You wanna play with the big fish you gotta net the big fish. I will lay some dough out that in the next 4 years the national champion each year will fall into that 43% category or higher - and none of those teams will be nebraska. However you will see a nebraska team that is pulling itself up the rung each and every year and the recruiting will come up with it.

Fully agree and also player development continues to improve annually.
 
We're good. I may have misunderstood your tone. In which case, maybe that makes me the sensitive one. :)

When it comes to the timing, I lean more your direction than Tuco's. I understand both sides of that debate, but I tend to be more conservative on the expectation side than most. I don't know if I'm wrong or right. I also wanted to be more patient with Riley, but we're learning that wasn't the right choice.

We share some common DNA. I too don't know if I'm right or wrong. All I know is that with SF & staff my love of Kool-aid is greater than ever!

Is Sept 1st ever going to get here???
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThrowBones92
Boys, cobble together the biggest number of 4* players however you want using any combination of services but it will still be lower than what OSU, UM, and PSU have. And that's the bottom line right now.

Whose ratings we use is a total red herring, it changes nothing about NU being on track to battle for a distant 4th in their own conference in recruiting.

We all understand that it's possible to improve slowly. The problem is there's no reason WHY Nebraska has to improve slowly. As Tuco said, it goes against everything the staff did from the start. They recruited very well in a short time frame and aggressively flipped the roster. It feels like that aggression is gone and they're settling for second-tier talent in this cycle. Second-tier talent peaks at second-tier results.

The other thing we forget is that while NU recruited ok the last several years, they did a terrible job of retaining the bigger names from those classes. There was a disproportionate number of flame-outs from their more highly ranked guys. So what you ended up with on a 2017 roster was not nearly as good as the sum of the recruiting classes leading up to that point. In fact the OWH did some great work breaking down how much that attrition hurt NU lately.

Last I checked you can only play 11 on defense and 11 on offense at a time.....will we be ok if we can get a 4/5* at each position? That would only require 22 4/5* players ( 22 out of 85 scholarships or 25.88 %.....even throw in another 8 4* players in case we have a few injuries 30 out of 85 or 35% ) would we have a chance to make the CFP? : ) J/K with you.
 
We're talking about championships. Period.
Right bud...im talking about a scott frost coached team that went 13-0 and beat auburn in its final game.. i understand it wasnt for a natty... it is relavent here since they didnt have a roster 45% full of 4 stars (Auburn was..also beat the actual national champ in alabama as well) and was coached by our current coach who could do the same with that system with our players... not saying he will but its relavent.. i dont need you telling me that doesnt belong in this conversation...PERIOD!!
 
The number of teams that the 45% bar is based upon is a low sample size. In the four year history of the CFP, nine programs have been involved and nearly half the appearances have been from two teams. Most of these CFP appearing programs have strong classes year to year and probably have stockpiled talent. Nearly all of Alabama's roster is 4&5 star players. They are like the death star of college football. Clearly a good amount of blue chip talent is needed to really compete when a team gets there. But whether that percentage is 45, 40 or even 35 is an open question.
Exactly you think someone who always says he bases his opinions on facts and statistics would understand just how small of a sample size he uses to try to make a point. 8 or 9 data points isn't enough to determine what's possible and what's not as far as winning a title is concerned. In such a small sample size there are tons of other factors besides recruiting that attribute to who wins a title and who doesn't.
 
no you don't, you have a chance, but it isn't a good chance. Washington did not have a good chance to beat Alabama. That had a very slim chance and had an even slimmer chance of beating both Alabama and Clemson.

Just like the year before, Michigan state had an even slimmer chance of beating Alabama and Clemson.

Everyone else that has played in the CFP, had at least 43% of their roster as 4/5 star players.
That's how much college football has changed since the CFP. Back in the day, with the conference bowl tie ins, you may run through your conference undefeated, end the regular season #1 and then possibly play a 2 loss team in the Orange Bowl with very little motivation to win the game because they have no shot at a title other than to possibly spoil a natty for someone. Win that game and there was a good chance you win at least a share of the national title. Now, you have to go through a conference season, conference championship game and then beat two top 4 teams with a shot at the title to win a natty. The road is a lot different than it was 20+ years ago.
 
So far it hasn't been wrong is not a strong defense of hypothesizing a threshold percentage of blue chip talent based upon a small sample size of teams.
MSU made an appearance in the CFP with maybe 22 4&5 star players (26%). MSU constitutes 1/9th of the programs that have made the CFP. So by logical extension the lower bound for an appearance in the CFP is 26%. Wisconsin could conceivably make a run at the CFP this year. They have between 13-17 4* players (20% or less).
A good amount of blue chip talent is needed to have a high probability of making the CFP. Nebraska will need more of those type of players to compete for the title. But it is frankly dumb to hang some magical percentage as a metric for winning a title.
Exactly, just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it impossible. A team that recruits at Wisconsin's level could win the title. And we've always recruited better than Wisconsin so we can recruit enough talent to win a title as well. Their metric also doesn't take into account that Saban and Dabo are phenomenal developers of talent, both probably better than Wisconsin. To win a title, we can't just be good at developing talent. We have to be the best. We were the best in the country at developing talent when we had our title run in the 90s.
 
That's how much college football has changed since the CFP. Back in the day, with the conference bowl tie ins, you may run through your conference undefeated, end the regular season #1 and then possibly play a 2 loss team in the Orange Bowl with very little motivation to win the game because they have no shot at a title other than to possibly spoil a natty for someone. Win that game and there was a good chance you win at least a share of the national title. Now, you have to go through a conference season, conference championship game and then beat two top 4 teams with a shot at the title to win a natty. The road is a lot different than it was 20+ years ago.
You sound as if it was that easy winning a title back then. Well they also had very few 1 or 2 loss teams having a chance at a title. Lose 1 and most likely your done. Lose 2 and you're definitely done.
 
You sound as if it was that easy winning a title back then. Well they also had very few 1 or 2 loss teams having a chance at a title. Lose 1 and most likely your done. Lose 2 and you're definitely done.
Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound easy. I do think it was easier back then, but was still hard. I think there was more importance put on the regular season and now the post season is more important.
 
How many title games were played before 2005?
giphy.gif


Come on man we have discussed this. 2005 is the modern recruiting rankings era (i.e. rivals, scout, ESPN, and 247 with 4 full classes). Prior to that there were no such things as 4 and 5 star recruits. There were simply class rankings, not individual.

Going back to 2002 is the earliest data available. That is exactly what this metric is doing. As we get further and further away from 2002, we get more and more data points. That makes the metric stronger and stronger. Some day, someone will probably go against the grain and win the NC with under 50% blue chip recruits.

Like I stated earlier with the #1 seed vs #16 seed in college basketball, until last year no #16 has ever beaten a #1. Obviously at some point there was a year 1, where there were only 4 games. That has grown over the years. That is exactly what is happening with this metric. It started in 2002 and has grown ever since.

Of course you can find holes in it, you can with most metrics. But so far no one has actually broke it. There have been 13 national champions since this metric was able to be used (2005 would be the first year with 4 full classes with star rankings). All of them have had greater than 50% blue chip recruits. That is all it is saying. Nothing more nothing less. Many of the points people are bringing up have nothing to do with what this metric is predicting.

It does not predict matchups between two teams. It does not predict conference championships. It doesn’t even predict the NC. It predicts the total amount of teams that will be capable of actually winning the NC based on their previous 4 recruiting classes. Whether those schools are successful also depends on development, coaching, schedules, etc. It also tells you, in an indirect way, who will NOT win the NC.

Also as I stated earlier. No one is expecting NU to be playing in a NC next year or the year after. But there have been many who have said they believe we should be able to play for one (or be in the CFP picture by being capable of winning the B1G) by years 4/5/6. For that to happen, our recruiting must increase. That is as simple as this metric is making it. Please stop trying to say it is trying to say something else because it isn’t. Better yet, read the article yourself so you can understand it.
 
Last edited:
So UCF goes undefeated and beats Auburn on Natl TV convincingly and that staff pulls in a great class considering the time frame.

Summer drudgery is on and now they have to sell Nebraska football and not a Peach bowl win.

I guess it doesn't surprise me where this class is at right now. When this team gets to winning games and using their OV's game time, I think it will get better.

The staff has some credit right now. Nebraska as a program has only a little bit. I'm not worried at all. 8 months in and chicken little is running through some veins already.

Good grief.
 
So UCF goes undefeated and beats Auburn on Natl TV convincingly and that staff pulls in a great class considering the time frame.

Summer drudgery is on and now they have to sell Nebraska football and not a Peach bowl win.

I guess it doesn't surprise me where this class is at right now. When this team gets to winning games and using their OV's game time, I think it will get better.

The staff has some credit right now. Nebraska as a program has only a little bit. I'm not worried at all. 8 months in and chicken little is running through some veins already.

Good grief.
I don’t know if that was a response to me or not, but I’ll respond anyway.

I, myself am not worried. I don’t expect us to compete for a national championship for probably a minimum of 6 to 7 years. But the point that I am trying to make to oldjar is that based on 1 single metric, it doesn’t matter what I ‘expect’, because unless we pick up recruiting it won’t matter. Yes they have been on the job 8 months. Yes, they haven’t played a game. Yes, once they start winning we should see an uptick in recruiting. However, those that believe we are going straight to the top by year 4 or 5 have a reality check coming unless we start pulling in monster talent.

People want to point to Wisconsin and how close they play against OSU, PSU, and the other powers in the East. But that is more of the style of offense/defense they play, just like Iowa. NU is going to struggle more, IMO, against these teams because instead of trying to slow the game down like UW and Iowa, we are trying to speed the game up with a fast o and aggressive d. Against superior athletes, like the East powers currently have, the talent gap is going to be exposed. Against lesser athletes, we can win (so UW and Iowa).

I think we can win the West. I think we will really struggle against the East if it is OSU or PSU. Michigan and MSU I think we have a better chance against because they don’t run the uptempo offenses that can make the games get out of hand in a hurry. If you choose to disagree, more power to you, I enjoy the discussion.
 
What were UCFs chances against mighty auburn last year.....? Did ucf have that 45% how about auburn?

Not relevant. There is another thread, or hell it may be in this thread, where I talk about examples of teams not being motivated to play bowl games. Auburn was playing for nothing but a Peach Bowl trophy. Motivation matters in exhibition games.
 
I don’t know if that was a response to me or not, but I’ll respond anyway.

I, myself am not worried. I don’t expect us to compete for a national championship for probably a minimum of 6 to 7 years. But the point that I am trying to make to oldjar is that based on 1 single metric, it doesn’t matter what I ‘expect’, because unless we pick up recruiting it won’t matter. Yes they have been on the job 8 months. Yes, they haven’t played a game. Yes, once they start winning we should see an uptick in recruiting. However, those that believe we are going straight to the top by year 4 or 5 have a reality check coming unless we start pulling in monster talent.

People want to point to Wisconsin and how close they play against OSU, PSU, and the other powers in the East. But that is more of the style of offense/defense they play, just like Iowa. NU is going to struggle more, IMO, against these teams because instead of trying to slow the game down like UW and Iowa, we are trying to speed the game up with a fast o and aggressive d. Against superior athletes, like the East powers currently have, the talent gap is going to be exposed. Against lesser athletes, we can win (so UW and Iowa).

I think we can win the West. I think we will really struggle against the East if it is OSU or PSU. Michigan and MSU I think we have a better chance against because they don’t run the uptempo offenses that can make the games get out of hand in a hurry. If you choose to disagree, more power to you, I enjoy the discussion.

Not you in particular but those who are all miffed that we aren't on schedule with a NT in year 3 or 4 based on recruiting a star threshold, of which I also subscribe to.

I agree you aren't going to go through a conference, a CCG, then a semi final, then the NC game without a lot of star talent. All the data points to you are going to need a good portion of highly gifted human beings running your O and D.

I think if SF cannot get a conference win in 7 years then no coach will be able to. We haven't seen one game played and some folks are belly aching about recruiting, and it comes off as grossly impatient to me.

Almost every college with a vacancy would have taken Frost last year if given the chance, that should tell folks something.
 
Last edited:
Not relevant. There is another thread, or hell it may be in this thread, where I talk about examples of teams not being motivated to play bowl games. Auburn was playing for nothing but a Peach Bowl trophy. Motivation matters in exhibition games.
Lol so now you get to determine what games are relevant. Why is a national title game even relevant? It's not the pros so you're just winning at an amateur level. Football has nothing to do with everything else in life so why should anyone care who wins?
 
Not you in particular but those who are all miffed that we aren't on schedule with a NT in year 3 or 4 based on recruiting a star threshold, of which I also subscribe to.

I agree you aren't going to go through a conference, a CCG, then a semi final, then the NC game without a lot of star talent. All the data points that you are going to need a good portion of highly gifted human beings running your O and D.

I think if SF cannot get a conference win in 7 years then no coach will be able to. We haven't seen one game played and some folks are belly aching about recruiting, and it comes off as grossly impatient to me.

Almost every college with a vacancy would have taken Frost last year if given the chance, that should tell folks something.


Why does everyone want to jump to conclusions that this is about Frost being the right guy? That is not the case, and has never been the case. So you last point is so out there it is beyond ridiculous.

Secondly, I am not necessarily belly aching about recruiting. I did and continue to question, why Nebraska is locking up players in June and July, that don't have offers that compare to Nebraska. Again, that is relevant because the head football coach stated out loud and in public that he doesn't recruit over a player, and if the player has an offer and accepts the offer that the offer and commitment will be honored.

Next, there is a huge difference between expecting to compete on the recruiting trail and expecting to compete on the field of play. I am on record, multiple times, of saying this team will finish 8-4. Best I can tell, no national champion has finished 8-4, so to say that people are expecting to go from 4-8 to national championship is just plain negligent

Then, I stated my OPINION that in order for Nebraska to compete for and play in national title games, they need to have at least 45% of their recruits be 4/5 star players. I also stated that because of the schemes they run, they will depend on athletes to be athletes. They have to win 1 on 1 matchups at the skill positions. They do not run an offense that is going to drain clock and take the air out of the ball. You are not going to beat 6 teams in the B1G West, a couple of teams from the B1G East, another team from the B1G East, maybe the same team twice, and 2 more top 4 teams in the nation with a bunch of 3 star players that were "coached up".

Lastly, I set forth a summary of the past class and what there is so far in the 2019 class to get to the 45% metric that I BELIEVE is necessary for Nebraska to compete for national titles. I don't care what Wisconsin might be able to do, or what Washington almost did, or what Michigan St almost did. If you think that Scott Frost can take 3 star kids, and home grown talent and kids with all the heart in the world and win titles, awesome, great, more power to you. If he does, he will be the first to do so since 2005.

This isn't as hard as some of you want to make it out to be. It is nothing more than me taking what I read in an article about recruiting and applying that analysis specifically to Nebraska.
 
Lol so now you get to determine what games are relevant. Why is a national title game even relevant? It's not the pros so you're just winning at an amateur level. Football has nothing to do with everything else in life so why should anyone care who wins?
The game was relevant a score was kept and one team won and the other lost. I didn't say the game was irrelevant. However, one team was more motivated to play the game than the other. The point that Auburn has a bunch of talent and still lost to UCF, who apparently doesn't have a bunch of talent, isn't relevant. That probably happens every week in football at all levels.

What difference does it make if it is pro, college, high school or pee wee? There are plenty of pro games where the team that needs a win to make the playoffs beats a team that has already clinched a playoff spot. Or a team 3 win team starts the final game of the season against a team going to the playoffs and wins the game with a back up QB and a bunch of young players.
 
Why does everyone want to jump to conclusions that this is about Frost being the right guy? That is not the case, and has never been the case. So you last point is so out there it is beyond ridiculous.

Secondly, I am not necessarily belly aching about recruiting. I did and continue to question, why Nebraska is locking up players in June and July, that don't have offers that compare to Nebraska. Again, that is relevant because the head football coach stated out loud and in public that he doesn't recruit over a player, and if the player has an offer and accepts the offer that the offer and commitment will be honored.

Next, there is a huge difference between expecting to compete on the recruiting trail and expecting to compete on the field of play. I am on record, multiple times, of saying this team will finish 8-4. Best I can tell, no national champion has finished 8-4, so to say that people are expecting to go from 4-8 to national championship is just plain negligent

Then, I stated my OPINION that in order for Nebraska to compete for and play in national title games, they need to have at least 45% of their recruits be 4/5 star players. I also stated that because of the schemes they run, they will depend on athletes to be athletes. They have to win 1 on 1 matchups at the skill positions. They do not run an offense that is going to drain clock and take the air out of the ball. You are not going to beat 6 teams in the B1G West, a couple of teams from the B1G East, another team from the B1G East, maybe the same team twice, and 2 more top 4 teams in the nation with a bunch of 3 star players that were "coached up".

Lastly, I set forth a summary of the past class and what there is so far in the 2019 class to get to the 45% metric that I BELIEVE is necessary for Nebraska to compete for national titles. I don't care what Wisconsin might be able to do, or what Washington almost did, or what Michigan St almost did. If you think that Scott Frost can take 3 star kids, and home grown talent and kids with all the heart in the world and win titles, awesome, great, more power to you. If he does, he will be the first to do so since 2005.

This isn't as hard as some of you want to make it out to be. It is nothing more than me taking what I read in an article about recruiting and applying that analysis specifically to Nebraska.


My point was that I think SF And this staff has it under control. I don't think they're slipping, they haven't barely started. In other words 'be patient'. That was my OPINION.

I agree 100% with you that what you need to have is a certain amount of high end talent.
And if that talent is largely rated 4 or 5 stars whom are playing for it all, then that is what you need to shoot for, if "it all", is the goal. Which we all know it is.... But the time frame I'm not sure about, Nebraska isn't like other programs in the echelon it is considered to be in. Nebraska literally has to go out of its way to compete and win.

I don't think Nebraska has a lot of aces in the hole. I'm not sure if this staff cannot get it done, it ever gets done again.

Its a dude like Chuck something something who went on a rant about recruiting who I was referring to, but if you got triggered then I don't know what to say to you in particular..... Have a nice day?
 
Nope just 2 years ago they played a brutal schedule and almost won the conference title. They have legitimately had one of the top defenses in the country the last two years. They also have consistently had a pretty good running game, and their receivers will be pretty good this year too. They are a legit top 10 team the last two years and will be again this year.

And won’t be in the CFP because there will come a time when they will get out athleted. They are Nebraska 1973-1992.

And I'd be happy as a clam if we got back to that point.

As I said, if that is the new ceiling, I just want to be let in on that bit of news. Just trying to figure out the new Nebraska standards. Thank you for confirming.

Does it have to be going from 4 wins, or from our 15 year history, immediately to NC?
Or is it ok to expect relative improvement.....get back to monkey could win 9 and division titles, then conference title\top ten seasons, then playoff\NC? Or does it all have to be expected at once?
I for one am too greatly wishing we could get to Wisconsins level. Once there, we will be able to take the next step. Its not like people are going to say `we have reached the top! Dont expect any NCs! All we can do!`
But we also wont boycott games or stop cheering if all we are getting is top ten seasons. We will cheer and hope to break through and probably will.
Of course, you absolutely know all of this but are choosing to be difficult just to be difficult.
Oh, and if its changing standards youre after, go find a riley apologist.

You are arguing points I’ve never once brought up. You are arguing record and wins and I am arguing recruiting progression and what has historically needed to happen to get to championships. You and others want to believe that you can coach up a team of average to slightly above average players to titles. I don’t.

Frost signed 7 Rivals 4 star players within 60 days of taking the job. Now we hear that we have to win x number of games to get that level of player. How? Why? We won 4 games last year and still signed 9 4 star players.

Another reason being thrown about, for a relatively average showing so far, is that the staff was behind in 2019 recruiting. Yet they will likely sign more 4 stars in 2018 than they will in 2019. How were they not behind in 2018 recruiting after being on the job just 2 months? Seems odd.

Lastly this isn’t being difficult to be difficult. You are just choosing to argue against a stance I am not taking and creating difficulty.

Again I’ll try to be clear. To get to a point that you are playing for titles, in my opinion, Nebraska needs to have 45% or more of their recruits as 4/5 star players. If you take 25 per year you would have 50 recruits. In order to maintain a pace where we would get to 45 %, we need to have 22 4/5 star players after this cycle. So 22-9( from last year) is 13. So in a perfect world we would have 13 4/5 star recruits in 2019. So far we have 3. Considering we only have 7-9 spots available, the odds of getting to 13 seems slim. So then the 2020 class is going to have to really pick up steam. By then we would have 75 scholarship players on the team, recruited by Frost, in order to be at 45%, you would need to have 30 of those 75 as 4/5 star players 9+3(current) is 12. Let’s get optimistic and say we sign 6 more 4 star kids and meet last year’s total. That gives you 18 after 2019. So you would have to get 12 in the 2020 class just to get to 45%. If they get 9 4/5 star kids in 2020, then you need 18 in 2021. So as you can see, this is t about wins and losses and immediately competing for titles. I am asking how you get to 45 4/5 star recruits over a four year period, when you only have 12 half way through.
1. You said, "You are arguing points I’ve never once brought up. You are arguing record and wins and I am arguing recruiting progression and what has historically needed to happen to get to championships." I never said you brought it up, but you definitely argued it. As bolded in the quote above, you said that Wisconsin is currently 'Nebraska 1973-1992'. Also said will not be in CFP (how is that not results btw?) One would rationally take that as saying Wisconsin is a top ten team that is not seriously considered for the National title. Is that right? That isn't a recruiting thing, it's a results thing. If it was a recruiting thing, you would have said 'Nebraska 1970-1990', or something different, correct? If it wasn't a results thing, you would not have picked the year just after our 2nd NC and the year right before seriously competing, and then the next year winning, our third NC. Right?

2. MY point, as well as Oldjars, is that we look forward to reaching Wisconsin results, or as YOU put it Nebraska 1973-1992, again. Who the hell doesn't? I never said I would simply be satisfied with that, but I certainly agree with Oldjar and everyone else with a brain that it would be awesome to get back to being a top ten team every year. That is what puts you in contention for moving up to the NC, which is exactly what Nebraska did in 1994. Also, what Nebraska did after building up under Devaney.

3. "You and others want to believe that you can coach up a team of average to slightly above average players to titles. I don’t." Um, when did I say that? Please, quote me. I remember saying we need more 4 stars. Put your money where your mouth is. And also, what do you mean by coach up? Do you mean coach up to a NC? Because while I agree with coach up, in my post you quoted I first referenced 9 games, which is what I would consider logical coaching up with our current talent. Again, please post where I said we didn't need more four stars.

4. All in all, you WERE arguing results at the time I quoted you, and I was too. I didn't argue your recruiting posts. I agree with you that recruiting needs to get better. The difference between us is that you expect (although you didn't expect this under Riley) for us to be at NC standards in recruiting and performance right now, while I understand we need to build up. First to 9, then division, then conference, then playoff, then NC. Recruiting goes hand in hand with that.

Having said that, I fully expect us to be top 20 this year in recruiting and if we aren't it's a letdown. Going forward, once we start winning 9 again, and then the division, I expect us to be in the top 15. If we don't, I agree we won't compete for the NC.

But once we hit top ten damn near every year like we were in the years you referenced, who in the hell won't be happy, but not satisfied, with that? After these past 15 years?!? Of course we'll be happy, and of course we'll still thirst for the NC. Which was my point!
Ridiculous.
 
1. You said, "You are arguing points I’ve never once brought up. You are arguing record and wins and I am arguing recruiting progression and what has historically needed to happen to get to championships." I never said you brought it up, but you definitely argued it. As bolded in the quote above, you said that Wisconsin is currently 'Nebraska 1973-1992'. Also said will not be in CFP (how is that not results btw?) One would rationally take that as saying Wisconsin is a top ten team that is not seriously considered for the National title. Is that right? That isn't a recruiting thing, it's a results thing. If it was a recruiting thing, you would have said 'Nebraska 1970-1990', or something different, correct? If it wasn't a results thing, you would not have picked the year just after our 2nd NC and the year right before seriously competing, and then the next year winning, our third NC. Right?

2. MY point, as well as Oldjars, is that we look forward to reaching Wisconsin results, or as YOU put it Nebraska 1973-1992, again. Who the hell doesn't? I never said I would simply be satisfied with that, but I certainly agree with Oldjar and everyone else with a brain that it would be awesome to get back to being a top ten team every year. That is what puts you in contention for moving up to the NC, which is exactly what Nebraska did in 1994. Also, what Nebraska did after building up under Devaney.

3. "You and others want to believe that you can coach up a team of average to slightly above average players to titles. I don’t." Um, when did I say that? Please, quote me. I remember saying we need more 4 stars. Put your money where your mouth is. And also, what do you mean by coach up? Do you mean coach up to a NC? Because while I agree with coach up, in my post you quoted I first referenced 9 games, which is what I would consider logical coaching up with our current talent. Again, please post where I said we didn't need more four stars.

4. All in all, you WERE arguing results at the time I quoted you, and I was too. I didn't argue your recruiting posts. I agree with you that recruiting needs to get better. The difference between us is that you expect (although you didn't expect this under Riley) for us to be at NC standards in recruiting and performance right now, while I understand we need to build up. First to 9, then division, then conference, then playoff, then NC. Recruiting goes hand in hand with that.

Having said that, I fully expect us to be top 20 this year in recruiting and if we aren't it's a letdown. Going forward, once we start winning 9 again, and then the division, I expect us to be in the top 15. If we don't, I agree we won't compete for the NC.

But once we hit top ten damn near every year like we were in the years you referenced, who in the hell won't be happy, but not satisfied, with that? After these past 15 years?!? Of course we'll be happy, and of course we'll still thirst for the NC. Which was my point!
Ridiculous.
Agree on all points. These threads are a huge downer. I'm super excited for the season to start. I haven't been this excited for Nebraska football in years. I'd much rather be discussing the things coming out of fall camp where I've been hearing a lot of good things. Can we put these threads off for a while, at least until Frost actually coaches a game here and it's not a recruiting dead period?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bremser
1. You said, "You are arguing points I’ve never once brought up. You are arguing record and wins and I am arguing recruiting progression and what has historically needed to happen to get to championships." I never said you brought it up, but you definitely argued it. As bolded in the quote above, you said that Wisconsin is currently 'Nebraska 1973-1992'. Also said will not be in CFP (how is that not results btw?) One would rationally take that as saying Wisconsin is a top ten team that is not seriously considered for the National title. Is that right? That isn't a recruiting thing, it's a results thing. If it was a recruiting thing, you would have said 'Nebraska 1970-1990', or something different, correct? If it wasn't a results thing, you would not have picked the year just after our 2nd NC and the year right before seriously competing, and then the next year winning, our third NC. Right?

2. MY point, as well as Oldjars, is that we look forward to reaching Wisconsin results, or as YOU put it Nebraska 1973-1992, again. Who the hell doesn't? I never said I would simply be satisfied with that, but I certainly agree with Oldjar and everyone else with a brain that it would be awesome to get back to being a top ten team every year. That is what puts you in contention for moving up to the NC, which is exactly what Nebraska did in 1994. Also, what Nebraska did after building up under Devaney.

3. "You and others want to believe that you can coach up a team of average to slightly above average players to titles. I don’t." Um, when did I say that? Please, quote me. I remember saying we need more 4 stars. Put your money where your mouth is. And also, what do you mean by coach up? Do you mean coach up to a NC? Because while I agree with coach up, in my post you quoted I first referenced 9 games, which is what I would consider logical coaching up with our current talent. Again, please post where I said we didn't need more four stars.

4. All in all, you WERE arguing results at the time I quoted you, and I was too. I didn't argue your recruiting posts. I agree with you that recruiting needs to get better. The difference between us is that you expect (although you didn't expect this under Riley) for us to be at NC standards in recruiting and performance right now, while I understand we need to build up. First to 9, then division, then conference, then playoff, then NC. Recruiting goes hand in hand with that.

Having said that, I fully expect us to be top 20 this year in recruiting and if we aren't it's a letdown. Going forward, once we start winning 9 again, and then the division, I expect us to be in the top 15. If we don't, I agree we won't compete for the NC.

But once we hit top ten damn near every year like we were in the years you referenced, who in the hell won't be happy, but not satisfied, with that? After these past 15 years?!? Of course we'll be happy, and of course we'll still thirst for the NC. Which was my point!
Ridiculous.

Did he write you the Illiad of strawmans too? I got a 6 paragraph diatribe on how I apparently view his opinions without mentioning him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F5Tornado
1. You said, "You are arguing points I’ve never once brought up. You are arguing record and wins and I am arguing recruiting progression and what has historically needed to happen to get to championships." I never said you brought it up, but you definitely argued it. As bolded in the quote above, you said that Wisconsin is currently 'Nebraska 1973-1992'. Also said will not be in CFP (how is that not results btw?) One would rationally take that as saying Wisconsin is a top ten team that is not seriously considered for the National title. Is that right? That isn't a recruiting thing, it's a results thing. If it was a recruiting thing, you would have said 'Nebraska 1970-1990', or something different, correct? If it wasn't a results thing, you would not have picked the year just after our 2nd NC and the year right before seriously competing, and then the next year winning, our third NC. Right?

Two different subjects. - People say look at Wisconsin does with their recruiting. My point is that Wisconsin has a ceiling because they lack elite athletes at certain positions. That is a recruiting issue.

2. MY point, as well as Oldjars, is that we look forward to reaching Wisconsin results, or as YOU put it Nebraska 1973-1992, again. Who the hell doesn't? I never said I would simply be satisfied with that, but I certainly agree with Oldjar and everyone else with a brain that it would be awesome to get back to being a top ten team every year. That is what puts you in contention for moving up to the NC, which is exactly what Nebraska did in 1994. Also, what Nebraska did after building up under Devaney.

Great. My point isn't about just reaching what Nebraska was 1973-1992, it is about exceeding it. Because Nebraska will run an offense that is up tempo and depends on athletic skill position players, they need to recruit better than Wisconsin.


3. "You and others want to believe that you can coach up a team of average to slightly above average players to titles. I don’t." Um, when did I say that? Please, quote me. I remember saying we need more 4 stars. Put your money where your mouth is. And also, what do you mean by coach up? Do you mean coach up to a NC? Because while I agree with coach up, in my post you quoted I first referenced 9 games, which is what I would consider logical coaching up with our current talent. Again, please post where I said we didn't need more four stars.

I am not going to go searching through a website looking for your quotes.

4. All in all, you WERE arguing results at the time I quoted you, and I was too. I didn't argue your recruiting posts. I agree with you that recruiting needs to get better. The difference between us is that you expect (although you didn't expect this under Riley) for us to be at NC standards in recruiting and performance right now, while I understand we need to build up. First to 9, then division, then conference, then playoff, then NC. Recruiting goes hand in hand with that.

At no time have I ever said Nebraska shouldn't be recruiting at a high level, regardless of who was coaching. Riley needed to be recruiting at a high level as well. As far as the build up, I stated that, I even broke down how by going backward in the number of 4 stars gets you further away from those benchmarks and isn't a build up at all.

Having said that, I fully expect us to be top 20 this year in recruiting and if we aren't it's a letdown. Going forward, once we start winning 9 again, and then the division, I expect us to be in the top 15. If we don't, I agree we won't compete for the NC.

Based on what? In order to get into the top 20 we are going to have to bring in about 6-7 more 4 star players. At the current rate, we will be at about 23-25

But once we hit top ten damn near every year like we were in the years you referenced, who in the hell won't be happy, but not satisfied, with that? After these past 15 years?!? Of course we'll be happy, and of course we'll still thirst for the NC. Which was my point!



Ridiculous.
 
Did he write you the Illiad of strawmans too? I got a 6 paragraph diatribe on how I apparently view his opinions without mentioning him.
Some people just seem to know it all, especially when you don't agree with them or they find that what you say doesn't jibe with their line of thinking. It happens.

Bullwinkle.png


mr-know-it-all.jpg
 
Right bud...im talking about a scott frost coached team that went 13-0 and beat auburn in its final game.. i understand it wasnt for a natty... it is relavent here since they didnt have a roster 45% full of 4 stars (Auburn was..also beat the actual national champ in alabama as well) and was coached by our current coach who could do the same with that system with our players... not saying he will but its relavent.. i dont need you telling me that doesnt belong in this conversation...PERIOD!!
Relax. This isn't worth getting worked up over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scarletred
Man would I freaking LOVE to play poker with you guys who go, "Yeah well you can have your facts and probabilities, I don't care." Clean you out in an hour because this one time you went all-in with 7-2 offsuit and caught the straight on the river and won a huge pot!
 
for clarification - the blue chip ratio is calculated utilizing the 247composite ratings of recruits

I think it is remarkable that dating back to 2005 when this ratio could be calculated - each year you could be given a choice of 10 -13 teams with a ratio of 50%+ or the field as to who would win the national championship and you could have taken the field (anyone of the other 55 or so power 5 schools) and lost every year.

As I have said no formula is absolute and I'm sure at some point a team with a ratio of < 50% will win it - but to those who are questioning the validity I would suggest proposing a better predictive tool.

The ratio also does not say you can't have an elite season with a lower ratio.
 
Man would I freaking LOVE to play poker with you guys who go, "Yeah well you can have your facts and probabilities, I don't care." Clean you out in an hour because this one time you went all-in with 7-2 offsuit and caught the straight on the river and won a huge pot!
I would gladly make a bet with any one of them, on who will will the NC this year. I get only the 14 teams listed as possibilities to win the NC using the blue chip ratio for this year. They get all 116 other FBS teams.
 
ADVERTISEMENT