ok, so much for Riley recruits always qualify
- Thread starter TheOutline
- Start date
I feel like 10% isn't all that bad. I have no idea what the average is, but it's probably higher than you'd think. What the staff messed up was not taking the +3, but stuff happens. Maybe they learn their lesson.
Duke, iirc, last year we were eligible to take 22. We took 20, so we weren't even in the +3 discussion ballbark yet.
Well, no, but I don't think that's what the staff thought. There were supposedly a pair of silent commits that didn't happen, Calvin being the one I know for sure.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it. I'm fine with swinging for the fences, but the staff needs to count on taking some losses, and over-take accordingly.
We will not be at the 85 scholarship limit, so "yes" we should be able to take more. The question is do you want to rationalize and say we didn't want them anyway, or recognize an area for improvement.
I've tried to make this point but for whatever reason it goes ignored.
I think it is because people look at recruiting 1 class at a time and don't evaluate the entire roster.
You have to roll the dice. We're not OSU, Mich, etc. he would have never come here if grades weren't an issue. He'd be in Florida.
The part that hurts is this class ended up a top 45.
If I recall, there was also late commits or signing day decisions by the Lewis and Johnson, who went to USC and Lenoir and Thomas who went to Oregon.
We don't have to be. Those schools have qualifying problems too. It happens. When a kid has enough talent, you take the chance. Unless you're fine with your program sitting on the mid-major plateau.
Yeah. There was definitely a headed shuffle at the end. And I agreed with you, even then, that filling out the class wasn't do-or-die. Worst case scenario, to me, was that they fell short and moved some scholarships to the 18 class. It looks like that's what's happening. I think the fact we will be under 80 going into this season is a bit foul... But it's not the end of the world, and can easily be fixed on signing day.
I don't look at the 2017 class as more do or die than any other. Rankings are numbers based on 1 class.
As I have said in other posts, when you redshirt the majority of a class, then your average recruiting class is going to be around 20 in number. When signing 18-21 per year, your classes won't be top 10 even if you only count 20 toward the rankings, schools that take 25 can eliminate their lowest 5, a class of 20 doesn't have that luxury.
As I have said in other posts, when you redshirt the majority of a class, then your average recruiting class is going to be around 20 in number. When signing 18-21 per year, your classes won't be top 10 even if you only count 20 toward the rankings, schools that take 25 can eliminate their lowest 5, a class of 20 doesn't have that luxury.
Oh, there are areas for improvement, but I was trying to find some good in it, and we had a small class size limit this year, so just trying to look at it and find a positive in it. Some guys aren't going to make it, happens every year.
The under 85 or 80 doesn't bother me that much considering that 40-42 players play regularly, the rest don't play much at all. I don't believe in signing reaches, in ability, just to fill a class or get to the 85 number because in this day and age, you can find yourself stuck with a player for 4 plus years. In the past, you could use the we are not renewing your annual scholarship. Now days, with the advent of the 4 year scholarship and the inability to cut a player due to athletic performance, you almost have to try to bury them on the depth chart and try to get them to quit. Some will some won't. So I would rather have an open scholarship or 5 than have 5 guys eating up scholarships.
Did the class really end up ranked around 45? That is very Beaver-like. Tell me it wasn't really around 45.
Who knows. I am pretty sure Watts and Blades weren't the only 2 guys in the country that didn't qualify or KJJ is the only player to leave a program. You can't just remove the 3 guys from Nebraska's numbers and leave the rest of the school's numbers static.
What's hilarious to me, though, is that in a lot of places I've seen people saying things like "I think" or "I hope" continuing with "they get this class to 20". That's looking more and more likely, but people want to press the panic button because of how it's happening. It's like, how did you think that would happen? What do you think attrition is?
I'm fine with schollies moving to '18, because it appears we have pretty good momentum, which would have been unfortunate if we only had like 15 slots to fill. Only on fan forums will you see people think taking 5 highly rated DBs in a class is a bad thing.
Ya, it's good to look and see if something positive can come out of it. My point is that the last coach put us on self-imposed scholarship restrictions, the current coach is doing the same. We are at 77 out of 85 scholarships.
Maybe you should post this gem on RSS so that Nate or Sean C may appreciate your wisdom.
Just win some games and the recruits will be there. We cannot average 8 wins per year and be attractive to young lads
It isn't. Most everyone loses a kid or two. A top 20-25, class didn't suddenly turn into a top 45 class, just because a couple Husker Online posters want it to.
That goes back to people looking at one class at a time. We need to be ranked in the top 15 for some to believe Riley is making hay in recruiting. To get to that ranking, you won't get there with 15-17 in a class, especially a class with a kicker.
I think folks are losing their gourd a little too much over this. We lost a corner, the 2nd NT in last years class, and potentially a WR in KJJ.
In any recruiting class, for the sum of various reasons, somewhere around half don't pan out. There's your first 2.
Cally's Top 5 class, was no different.
Me personally, I'm not worried at all about the long term health of the WR or DB or DL room. And I don't really worry that much about losing Watts or Blades having a huge impact this season.
In any recruiting class, for the sum of various reasons, somewhere around half don't pan out. There's your first 2.
Cally's Top 5 class, was no different.
Me personally, I'm not worried at all about the long term health of the WR or DB or DL room. And I don't really worry that much about losing Watts or Blades having a huge impact this season.
Some truth to this but I suspect we can all agree that we would like our recruits to at least have the opportunity to don the pads and let their play on the field determine whether or not they pan out.
I'm sure all coaches would like that too. But if I remember right, Cally's Top 5 class had the notoriety that within 2 years half the personnel weren't on campus in any capacity, let alone trying to prove themselves somewhere on the depth chart.
I think recruiting elite, borderline academically eligible recruits should be part of our strategy. If they are truly difference makers, then why not steal them away from the powerhouse schools? It's a chance I think we need to take.
That being said, losing these guys completely changes my perception of the class. The 2018 class looks great so far, but we need multiple years in the Top 15 to be able to have success on a national level. We've recruited in the 20-30 range consistently for years and that's about where we end up on the field as well. With the losses we've sustained, this is a class well below what we should expect in terms of final results.
That being said, losing these guys completely changes my perception of the class. The 2018 class looks great so far, but we need multiple years in the Top 15 to be able to have success on a national level. We've recruited in the 20-30 range consistently for years and that's about where we end up on the field as well. With the losses we've sustained, this is a class well below what we should expect in terms of final results.
Can you list some .. I would be interested to see if they went elsewhere and were high level contributors. I suspect some had they shown high level promise would have remained on the team. I wish more recruits who, if after 2 years, hadn't shown any promise would move on and open up scholarships. I think there is a difference between getting a kid on campus and in pads and never getting them to the first official practice
It was a big talking point.
Whenever someone said Bo got some 4 star players too and that Bos classes were better than riles, the argument was always that Bos never made it to campus and Riley wont have that happen. Dont act like you dont remember that.
It was true about Bo. But if you criticize him, you better criticze Riley.
Part of the issue is the the teams that have an abundance of redshirts. Let's say you bring in a kid...could be a 3 star or 4 star...and he just isn't ready to play as a freshmen. The problem is that you might look at him after fall camp and realize, "This kid probably will never be able to play." If you choose to redshirt him then he has a good chance of being on scholarship for five years instead of four.
In general, I think redshirting is over rated except for offensive line (an extra year to get to the right weight) and perhaps quarterback (lots to learn). If the kid has some skills, stick him on special teams and avoid the redshirt.
In general, I think redshirting is over rated except for offensive line (an extra year to get to the right weight) and perhaps quarterback (lots to learn). If the kid has some skills, stick him on special teams and avoid the redshirt.
Nice. Point out where I criticized Bo about missing on top 50 talent. Or even 4 star talent. You won't find what isn't there.
You can be mad that I am a Riley apologist but I don't ever recall bagging on bo for recruits that never made it. I have pointed out that his best class had only 12 or so on campus 3 years later, but that is different than Watts and Blades never making it to campus.
I view this as a purely facetious post, and that's fine. It was a problem when Pelini was here, it's still a problem. You can sugarcoat a turd, but underneath, it's still a turd.
Technically we're at 42. If a few programs right ahead missed missed on 15 percent of their then we might climb to 38th. With that said, (5) 4 stars in the class. OUCH!!! Unless you're one of the "4 or 5 star with heart"
I never heard anybody say that. People did criticize him for signing as the only QB in a class a guy that everybody knew was going to play pro baseball and thus leaving us thin at the position. Riley hasn't done that.
Similar threads
