Texas vs. California recruiting

[Huskers123456]

I constantly hear about how moving to the Big 10 killed our Texas recruiting, which in turn killed our program. Let's make a list. I'll go first with the first ones off the top of my head (yes, i know im forgetting a bunch):

Texas:
Turner Gill
Aaron Graham
Bulkhead
Craver
Tommy Armstrong
Aaron Taylor
Kris Bown
Demorio Williams
Ciante Evans

California:
Tmart
Amart
Helu
Michael Booker
Gomes
Phillips
Abdul Muhammad
Stai
Ralph Brown
Enunwa
Eric Martin
Lucky

 

[RedMyMind]

yes

 

[phoenix4nu]

New Jersey was also an important state for recruiting. Maybe as important as Texas?

 

[TFrazier]

Don’t forget about Florida.

 

[Huskers123456]

New Jersey was also an important state for recruiting. Maybe as important as Texas?

No doubt. Some really impactful players from there.

 

[Huskers123456]

Don’t forget about Florida.

I just don't see the numbers when looking at Florida.

 

[TFrazier]

I just don't see the numbers when looking at Florida.

I understand but it is still an important state for Nebraska recruiting.

 

[HuskerLLM]

Jake Young has to be on the TX list...1st team All American

Broderick Thomas on TX list...2 time All American

Vince Ferragamo has to be on the Cali list

 

[Big bo fan]

I just don't see the numbers when looking at Florida.

Touchdown Tommie was from Florida . Enough said.

 

[HuskerAlum92]

I constantly hear about how moving to the Big 10 killed our Texas recruiting, which in turn killed our program.

I couldn’t possibly disagree more.

Program is not dead
Big10 did not cause our problems
Piss poor AD and piss poor coaching did
Texas recruiting is overrated AF

 

[Landomatic]

Texas recruiting is overrated AF

Matt Rhule disagrees. As does pretty much every coach and recruiting service in the country. And anyone being even slightly objective.

 

[redwine65]

2 of the 3 heismens = the big O

 

[Landomatic]

I constantly hear about how moving to the Big 10 killed our Texas recruiting, which in turn killed our program. Let's make a list. I'll go first with the first ones off the top of my head (yes, i know im forgetting a bunch):

Curious why you made this Texas vs California? California hasn't been part of the B1G recruiting footprint until this year. Why not make it Texas vs Ohio or Texas vs Michigan or something? I mean, I get your argument and it's always a fun one, but just not seeing what California has to do with it (until now)? Or are you saying that the addition of California to the B1G will hopefully make up for the loss of Texas recruiting ties going forward?

 

[Landomatic]

On3 wrote an article on this last year. I'm sure there have been others, but that's just the first and most recent one that showed up in my google feed when I searched it.

Top 300 high school football recruits by state...

Texas – 59
Georgia – 38
Florida – 29
California – 28
Alabama – 13
Maryland – 10
Mississippi – 9
Ohio – 9
North Carolina – 8
Pennsylvania – 7
Arizona – 6
Illinois – 6
Missouri – 6
New Jersey – 6
Louisiana – 5
Michigan – 5
South Carolina – 5
Tennessee – 5
Virginia – 5
Washington – 5
Arkansas – 4
Indiana – 4
Wisconsin – 4
Massachusetts – 3
Connecticut – 3
District of Columbia – 3
Iowa – 2
New York – 2
Oklahoma – 2
Utah – 2
United Kingdom – 1
Idaho – 1
Minnesota – 1
Nebraska – 1
Oregon – 1
South Dakota – 1
West Virginia – 1

Texas had more (59) than all of the B1G states had combined (55). I'm sure that list varies from year-to-year and different data from different services will tweak it a little. But it's always been in that ballpark year in and year out, and should put things in perspective as to the importance of having Texas ties when it comes to recruiting.

The good news is that Rhule clearly knows this and seems to be emphasizing it. And the addition of California should help.

 

[Huskers123456]

Curious why you made this Texas vs California? California hasn't been part of the B1G recruiting footprint until this year. Why not make it Texas vs Ohio or Texas vs Michigan or something? I mean, I get your argument and it's always a fun one, but just not seeing what California has to do with it (until now)? Or are you saying that the addition of California to the B1G will hopefully make up for the loss of Texas recruiting ties going forward?

I'm saying that some people on here and reporters make the claim that Texas recruiting was so important to our program but its not true. We've always recruited nationally. And other states, like Nebraska and California have been more fruitful. The NJ list would probably be more impressive than Texas too.

We've never been in a conference with California schools but look at all the talent we got from there.

The Texas recruiting myth is strung along by people who want us back in the Big 12.

 

[Huskers123456]

On3 wrote an article on this last year. I'm sure there have been others, but that's just the first and most recent one that showed up in my google feed when I searched it.

Top 300 high school football recruits by state...

Texas – 59
Georgia – 38
Florida – 29
California – 28
Alabama – 13
Maryland – 10
Mississippi – 9
Ohio – 9
North Carolina – 8
Pennsylvania – 7
Arizona – 6
Illinois – 6
Missouri – 6
New Jersey – 6
Louisiana – 5
Michigan – 5
South Carolina – 5
Tennessee – 5
Virginia – 5
Washington – 5
Arkansas – 4
Indiana – 4
Wisconsin – 4
Massachusetts – 3
Connecticut – 3
District of Columbia – 3
Iowa – 2
New York – 2
Oklahoma – 2
Utah – 2
United Kingdom – 1
Idaho – 1
Minnesota – 1
Nebraska – 1
Oregon – 1
South Dakota – 1
West Virginia – 1

Texas had more (59) than all of the B1G states had combined (55). I'm sure that list varies from year-to-year and different data from different services will tweak it a little. But it's always been in that ballpark year in and year out, and should put things in perspective as to the importance of having Texas ties when it comes to recruiting.

The good news is that Rhule clearly knows this and seems to be emphasizing it. And the addition of California should help.

That's great, but Texas recruiting has always just been a slice of the NU recruiting pie. Not really even an oversized slice either. We don't need to be in the Big 12 to recruit Texas.

I've always maintained that you also have to know what you are doing recruiting Texas too. Tons of prospects, but alot who have peaked and been evaluated by hundreds of coaches by their senior year. You can't be lazy with Texas recruiting. Same with Florida. Thankfully Rhule is the opposite of lazy.

I think our hit rate has been higher on Cali recruiting because they don't have the youth infrastructure of TX and they are so far from majority of P5 colleges. Easier to find hidden gems.

 

[DerHusker]

We’ve had this discussion before and the answer is still the same.

In the Big 8 and before the big 12 we had success. In the Big 8 we didn’t play any team in Texas with any conference scheduled regularity. We seemed to do OK without any conference connection to Texas. We won National Championships in 94 & 95. (Edit: Also won National Championships in 70 & 71) Even the Big 12 Championship and National Champion in 97 was with players we recruited before we had any conference scheduled regularity in Texas.


It is JMHO that the conference affiliation is not what matters but the Coach and the recruiting priority that coach places on any particular region. The impactful players we got in the past (Pre Big 12) were not due to conference affiliation but due to our coach and recruiting priority to that area.

My $.02

 

[CheeseRunza]

https://huskers.com/football-first-team-all-americans-by-state

 

[Huskers123456]

https://huskers.com/football-first-team-all-americans-by-state

Good list but it doesn't account for players like Phillips or even Tmart or Burkhead.

 

[CheeseRunza]

Good list but it doesn't account for players like Phillips or even Tmart or Burkhead.

Yeah, I thought they had a list of all conference players but couldn't find it. Must have seen it in the press guide.

 

[V-Doub]

I couldn’t possibly disagree more.

Program is not dead
Big10 did not cause our problems
Piss poor AD and piss poor coaching did
Texas recruiting is overrated AF

Our recruiting was on a steady downward decline since the firing of Callahan and the program peaked (post Solich) under Pelini in about 2009-10. We were already on the precipice of decline when we entered the B1G but nobody saw it. (or wanted to see it) Callahan’s recruits were gone and we just didn’t have enough quality players to compete with the top of the B1G. Guys like Burkhead, Gregory and few others were really good players, but not enough. Especially on the o-line and defensive interior line. And we never had the leadership that could fix these deficiencies.

I might push back a little on TX recruits being overrated. But otherwise you’re spot on… Nebraska’s failures in the B1G are 85% our own doing and 15% the quality of the league. Better league, but our university/athletic leadership has been a fvcking trainwreck the entire time we’ve been members.

 

[Bugeater]

Just get as many 4*- 5* players as you can from any state!

 

[Dean Pope]

No doubt. Some really impactful players from there.

I think New Jersey is a pretty tough place to recruit. Great competition there from Penn State, Ohio State and now some SEC teams are attracting the top kids too. Not to mention Rutgers. But if Rhule has contacts there and some coaches who can have some success recruiting that area it's a good spot to recruit from.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

There appears to be a couple of different points being discussed and is sort of confusing issues. The issues are related but different ( If I remember correctly, this thread was spawned from another thread discussing recruiting as well)

One point being argued is that Texas was/ is an overrated in the recruiting history of Nebraska football

Another is that it appears that some don't think Nebraska should be or needs to be recruiting Texas

A third is that it is necessary for the state to be in the conference footprint in order to have recruiting success in that particular state.

 

[Huskers123456]

There appears to be a couple of different points being discussed and is sort of confusing issues. The issues are related but different ( If I remember correctly, this thread was spawned from another thread discussing recruiting as well)

One point being argued is that Texas was/ is an overrated in the recruiting history of Nebraska football

Another is that it appears that some don't think Nebraska should be or needs to be recruiting Texas

A third is that it is necessary for the state to be in the conference footprint in order to have recruiting success in that particular state.

Correct. I was/am arguing Texas wasn't critical to our success in the first place and we certainly don't have to be in the Big 12 to recruit successfully in Texas. It was just a piece of the puzzle that made up our national recruiting. We have been in a conference with Texas members for what, 15 years of our history?

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Correct. I was/am arguing Texas wasn't critical to our success in the first place and we certainly don't have to be in the Big 12 to recruit successfully in Texas. It was just a piece of the puzzle that made up our national recruiting. We have been in a conference with Texas members for what, 15 years of our history?

My counter point would be that just because it wasn’t critical in the past that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be in the future.

If your coaches have ties to the state with the highest number of blue chip players, you should be recruiting that area or state heavily.

 

[Huskers123456]

My counter point would be that just because it wasn’t critical in the past that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be in the future.

If your coaches have ties to the state with the highest number of blue chip players, you should be recruiting that area or state heavily.

Absolutely. It will be critical going forward with Rhule.

 

[HuskerAlum92]

There appears to be a couple of different points being discussed and is sort of confusing issues. The issues are related but different ( If I remember correctly, this thread was spawned from another thread discussing recruiting as well)

One point being argued is that Texas was/ is an overrated in the recruiting history of Nebraska football

Another is that it appears that some don't think Nebraska should be or needs to be recruiting Texas

A third is that it is necessary for the state to be in the conference footprint in order to have recruiting success in that particular state.

Agree strongly on the first point. Disagree strongly on the last two.

 

[Landomatic]

There appears to be a couple of different points being discussed and is sort of confusing issues. The issues are related but different ( If I remember correctly, this thread was spawned from another thread discussing recruiting as well)

Some Nebraska fans, particularly on this board, have a borderline unhealthy obsession with being anti all things Texas. So, pretty much any chance some of them have to dismiss (to put it mildly) Texas, they'll twist and spin things any way they can.

One point being argued is that Texas was/ is overrated in the recruiting history of Nebraska football

I can certainly see that side of the argument. However, my position is that, although it might not have been a big slice of our recruiting pie, it's still a slice and putting ourself at a disadvantage for that slice is never a good thing, whether that's from ignoring it or removing ourself from the footprint of it or whatever. Considering all the other factors we already have working against us, as important as Texas is to producing talent, we might not have to go all in on it, but we damn well shouldn't put ourself at more of a disadvantage for tapping into it.

Another is that it appears that some don't think Nebraska should be or needs to be recruiting Texas

Well, these people are morons and are clearly just obsessed with hating Texas. It's such a stupid argument, it doesn't really deserve much discussion. Thankfully, Rhule clearly knows this.

A third is that it is necessary for the state to be in the conference footprint in order to have recruiting success in that particular state.

I don't know that anyone is really saying this. I'm in the camp that thinks it's not "necessary" but it damn sure wouldn't hurt.

 

[Huskers123456]

Some Nebraska fans, particularly on this board, have a borderline unhealthy obsession with being anti all things Texas. So, pretty much any chance some of them have to dismiss (to put it mildly) Texas, they'll twist and spin things any way they can.



I can certainly see that side of the argument. However, my position is that, although it might not have been a big slice of our recruiting pie, it's still a slice and putting ourself at a disadvantage for that slice is never a good thing, whether that's from ignoring it or removing ourself from the footprint of it or whatever. Considering all the other factors we already have working against us, as important as Texas is to producing talent, we might not have to go all in on it, but we damn well shouldn't put ourself at more of a disadvantage for tapping into it.



Well, these people are morons and are clearly just obsessed with hating Texas. It's such a stupid argument, it doesn't really deserve much discussion. Thankfully, Rhule clearly knows this.



I don't know that anyone is really saying this. I'm in the camp that thinks it's not "necessary" but it damn sure wouldn't hurt.

People are still saying that our downfall was a result of not playing in Texas any more. Sportscasters still repeat it. I just heard it on Fox Sports radio this summer. Still hear it occasionally from fans of other teams when I'm on vacation. Very common misconception.