Michael Eletise has picked his top 5 and we made the list. GBR!
NU On the Short List for Michael Eletise
- Thread starter nebcountry
- Start date
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
He's a 4*, I want him.
Careful, according to some, 4* and 5* players might not help us.
Actually, what you suggest is true. They might not help us at all. They could flop. Having said that, I'd rather flop with 4 and 5* players than 2 and 3* players any day.
Exactly, you dont know how any player will turn out regardless of their ranking, But it's a proven fact the teams at the top or near it in recruiting rankings are the big fish of college football now. And you dont get to the top 5-10 or even 15 in recruiting rankings with a bunch of 3* players no matter how good you think they are. Sure some 3*s play like a 5* and vice versa but you can't build a national championship TEAM of 3*s. So all you ****** that keep referencing the other thread that myself and a few others who are realists, and can see the path to national success can shove it right up your ***. Because until we recruit in the top 15 at least we will be stuck right where we are. Scraping by to beat Iowa, getting physically abused by Minnesota, and pisspounded by Wiscy and Ohio St.
Didn't mean to trip your trigger...
I didn't see people in the other thread saying all we need are 3* players...
No one wants to have only 2 or 3 star players. So let's remove that from the discussion now. I think the point that some (including me) make regarding - can we be competitive at the highest level without a top 10 recruiting class? is YES. There are several examples of teams that outperformed what their "recruiting ranking" would suggest.
Wisconsin to name one. They have competed elite teams and done so admirably, while their recruiting rankings do not suggest they should be able to.
Michigan State - Yes, they are beginning to pull in higher ranked classes, but the classes that built this current run of success were not ranked in the top 10.
Stanford - Harbaugh years - again, not ranked in the top 10 for talent, but competed at the highest levels.
Even Boise State - when matched up against the superior athletes, they have shown time and time again that they can play.
This notion that a team must wave the white flag because they didn't recruit a top 5 - 10 recruiting class is a joke to me.
Once again - OF COURSE, everyone wants the top 5 - 10 recruiting class. No one is saying "nah, we don't want 5 star talent" - but I do understand where people are coming from when they say that it is not a prerequisite of competing at the highest levels.
And 0 National Titles up there. I agree with you that if alls we want is to beat the 2nd tier teams then ya we can do that with basically the talent level we have right now WITH good coaches. But to beat Bama, Ohio St. Oregon, then you have to recruit with them AND Have good coaches. I trust this staffs talent evaluation a lot more than the last staffs so unless the under the radar guys they are getting all bust I am fine with taking a Boe wilson, even bootle because of his blazing speed. If this staff can take us a notch higher by not getting blown out in big games and winning all the ones we should, then with their effort I have no doubt the recruiting of highly sought after 4* players will be easier to come by. After a couple years of that then you should be in the Playoff picture then anything can happen
Oregon does not belong in the same sentence with Ohio state and Alabama in recruiting. I believe their average class rank is 18 over the last five years. I think Nebraska actually had higher ranked classes than oregon in two of those five years. Top 25 classes, good coaching, and you have to have THE MAN...at qb.
I'm not sure why you are saying that our ceiling is getting abused by Minny at the current recruiting level.
The reason Bo is out as a coach is because getting piss pounded by Wisconsin, abused by Minny and scraping by Iowa was far below the potential of the three and four star recruits we had. Not that we were unhappy with him pulling in the Gregory and Abdullah's of the world.
We should have beaten a national championship caliber Texas team for the conference title with a team of three and four star players. Of which Suh was one. And even further in the tenure a pretty darn talented SC team in a bowl
This. In the aforementioned threads, no one was arguing that high ranked classes aren't necessary.
What others (and myself) were questioning, was why base a class being adequate off of X number of 4-stars or X number of a certain Rivals Ranking. I've seen others state we need to recruit to get classes in the top 20, 15, 10, etc...but never measured these other ways. I was curious the rationale/basis of these.
Again, I questioned your guys's focus on those minimums because I had never seen either of them before...whereas it's pretty common to see many posters (on many different team sites) use class rankings as the minimum threshold to be able to compete for [insert desired goal].
I don't propose anything.
I'll admit I may have started out as mocking/poking fun at it, but as we went down the rabbit hole of replies, all I was really looking for was an explanation to better understand how those very specific minimums came to be.
Suh was a top 4 star player rated 6.0 Which is .1 off from being a 5* he was also one of the top 100 recruits in the country. From your post it sounds like you're dismissing him as merely another 4* recruit, which doesn't accurately portray Suh at all.
I don't use/look at "minimum" number of any particular rating. But I can understand a thought process that leads someone to consider "minimums" for class makeup. To me, it's just another way to consider the rankings/talent level, and to take into account attrition.
Suh was a big get, no doubt, but the point I was making that his 27 class mates, the vast bulk of which were "merely another 4*" or even 3*, not immediate impact studs.
It's also telling that "only 0.1 away" matters at the 6.0 level, but not at the 5.5 level. With proclamations from the peanut gallery that 5.6 or 5.7 is the absolute minimum for any recruit. If we're going to have a fudge factor for subjectiveness it should apply to all recruits, and not just those that are "can't miss". If anything, the fudge factor should apply *more* at the lower levels, considering "can't miss" lends a little more credence to the fact that we can see the kid can play.
Ultimately its what on the field that matters. Mack Brown won February more often than not, but he's going was held to account what those kids did in the fall. If Riley can win big with 5.6 type of players and others sprinkled in, so be it, but let's not issue proclamations of "not cutting it" quite yet.
And let not dismiss one other thing. We can celebrate Suh's class as being pretty good on the whole (anywhere between 1 and 5 depending on the service) but Tom Lemming (who I think had them at #1) said that there were two pretty big factors in being ranked that high. One was sheer numbers, not simply average star ranking. And two, BC addressed plenty of team needs with the players he brought in. Had BC brought in a the same level of recruits at positions we didn't need so much in numbers more alined with a normal class for us, we'd wouldn't have sniffed those lofty spots.
To get to those top 15 class you are going to need double digit 4*-5*s as I suggested, You can't get there without at least that many. Last year the 16th place USCe had less than 10 and 17th place had 11, then everyone lower had less. So thats where I'm coming from on double digit 4*s or higher obviously. (can we get a 5* over here) To get that top 15 you need that many 4*s. Then the coaches have to coach em up unlike the last staff that had most of the 4*s transfer or just not develop while here.
HCMR has been quoted, that you need top ranked classes; and plans to work to that point.
IMO
- Under Bo some often talked of Star averages of players; decent comparison when Bo was giving out fewer schoolies than he could. The issue goes to SEC rumored things like cutting guys that don't hit second string or above real quick - to take more kids in a shorter period of time..... Can see how that helps if there is a 35-40% wash out rate among 4 and 5 stars; whatever the #, few teams can play that game from a large # of stars standpoint. We will progress - especially with W's
IMO
- Under Bo some often talked of Star averages of players; decent comparison when Bo was giving out fewer schoolies than he could. The issue goes to SEC rumored things like cutting guys that don't hit second string or above real quick - to take more kids in a shorter period of time..... Can see how that helps if there is a 35-40% wash out rate among 4 and 5 stars; whatever the #, few teams can play that game from a large # of stars standpoint. We will progress - especially with W's
It is telling that .1 matters, but not for the reasons you claim, unless you believe the ranking is completely linear. But doesn't it seem kind of silly to say the difference in general between a 5.5 and a 5.6 would be the same between a 6.0 and 6.1? Also I believe you should account for some margin of error and it seems like .1 is about right.
Would you rather get a 5.5 player who should be 5.6 or a 5.7 who should be 5.8.?
As for the team rankings, Rivals only counts the top 20 commits, so the size of the class doesn't matter in their team ranking method. If you want to go by other services/people you'll have to break down their ranking criteria and then we'll have to look at what we need to get to achieve our goals.
Unless your Bobo the clown and sign <20 so you can give 6-9 scholarships to deserving v3rd string sophmore qbs and a bunch of other non starting walk-ons almost every year. THEN class size matters in the rankings ha, but we wont have that problem no more. Idc about the "4-year scholarship" we will still push kids out by convincing them they will get more pt at another school, ala johnny stanton
Depends entirely on how much "region" comes into play. With Us and Ole Miss, it doesn't seem like its the determining factor, but it's kinda weird that his offer list is basically the entire Pac-10 and his final five includes Nebraska and Ole Miss.If region doesn't enter into it in a major way. He should be ours.
Either way, Coach Kav is straight rocking it right now.
I don't know what I believe regarding Rivals scale, but based on their definitions (which are essentially bins) and the act of placing people in those bins is pretty subjective, it would be hard to argue whether the process in linear or logarithmic definitively. If we're talking "belief", that's pretty subjective in itself anyway and we could argue till we're blue in the face over whether Jesus or Allah or Scout or 247 has the best bins and evaluators. Ultimately my point was getting at, binning people is subjective and the fudge factor is probably higher on the low end than the high end, because everyone can easily see that LeBron has skillz you know?
I guess the fudge factor and universal randomness of roughly half these guys panning out means that I'm generally ok with anything in that 5.5 to 5.8 range. The numbers are fun for old guys to argue about in coffee shops and stuff, and as a rough cut you want guys in the higher bins, but if a staff is going to offer guys in that range you want to see what he does against competition on film and some measurables. I feel worse about a guy that doesn't seem to have the necessary athleticism at 5.7 (maybe he plays for a big high school program) than I do about a kid that looks to be athletically better at 5.5
As to your last paragraph, yes. I believe that's the main reason why the Huskers #1 class, was only #1 by Lemming (BC's buddy), Rivals had us lower owing to their methodology. Somewhere around 5, and maybe even as low as 7, I can't remember.
I guess my basic goal would to be inside that Top 20, Top 15 regularly, which doesn't seem all that different vision wise from Riley. Nebraska isn't going to be a place that has Top 5 or 10 classes year in year out, we just have to stay within striking distance of programs that do like Oregon does.
I also never really believed that hiring Riley meant that all of the Top 100 was just going to jump into our boat. So its not "sky is falling for me", what we're doing right now, I think we're on track. And I don't think its even Riley related, of the coaches who were available to throw money at, I really don't think a Hudspeth or a Frost was necessarily going to grab a Top 5 class either. Frost may not even be able to pull our under the radar kid from us after mentoring a Heisman QB on national tv.
If I had to guess, I'd say most people, including the Rivals evaluators, use the scale linearly. Most people don't think logarithmically.
If XYZ at 6'2 and 4.5 can do ABC, then this other guy at 6'3 and 4.3 should be able to do this much production!
That kind of thing. We're proportional creatures, not geometric ones.
If XYZ at 6'2 and 4.5 can do ABC, then this other guy at 6'3 and 4.3 should be able to do this much production!
That kind of thing. We're proportional creatures, not geometric ones.
Here's the old link to the rivals definitions.
Based on their scale, the 0.1 is undefined. Anyone from 5.5 to 5.7 is an All Region level talent. So there's really little point to having a pissing match of a 5.5 or 5.6 since the service itself doesn't even care to distinguish. Obviously higher is better, but how much better, and does the gradation even mean much considering the subjectiveness within that specific band and what that athlete might take to training in college? Probly not, fewer bins are probably better.
But yah, I'd love about 10 Top 100 players here
Based on their scale, the 0.1 is undefined. Anyone from 5.5 to 5.7 is an All Region level talent. So there's really little point to having a pissing match of a 5.5 or 5.6 since the service itself doesn't even care to distinguish. Obviously higher is better, but how much better, and does the gradation even mean much considering the subjectiveness within that specific band and what that athlete might take to training in college? Probly not, fewer bins are probably better.
But yah, I'd love about 10 Top 100 players here
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Rhule flying in and putting up last year's seniors on his own dime...- Latest: WallyHusker82
-
-