What happened to recruiting?

[NikkiSixx]

just asking what happened, last time I looked we were in the top 15 nationally.. now we are 29th and 8th in the conference...

Current rivals team recruiting rankings:

1. Ohio State
3. Michigan
15. Rutgers
17. Iowa
18. Michigan State
21. Northwestern
23. Maryland
27. Iowa State (for the big 12 guys)
29. Nebraska

 

[Yossarian23]

just asking what happened, last time I looked we were in the top 15 nationally.. now we are 29th and 8th in the conference...

Current rivals team recruiting rankings:

1. Ohio State
3. Michigan
15. Rutgers
17. Iowa
18. Michigan State
21. Northwestern
23. Maryland
27. Iowa State (for the big 12 guys)
29. Nebraska

Because signing day is 7 months away and there is a large disparity in the # of commitments from one school to another school. With the exception of Maryland, every other school you listed ahead of us has at least 4 more commitments. I only see a few teams at 20+ commitments, so every recruit factors into the class rank for most teams right now.

If you rank by recruit average we jump to 20th and 4th respectively. Not super, but probably more indicative of class quality right now. Iowa State is ahead of us by total count, but I wouldn't trade our class for theirs...with 4 less 4*'s and 2 more 2*'s than we do. Not saying you would trade it, just saying 27 is not always better than 29.

I don't have a problem with being a little behind on # of commitments in July, as a lot of it is determined by the dates the recruits choose to announce, and if I remember right, some big dates are on the near horizon. We hit the end of the regular season and are still lagging behind in numbers, then I'll start worrying.

 

[otismotis08]

It's no surprise that OSU and Mich are #1 and #3. They take recruiting seriously and the numbers show it.

 

[nebcountry]

Landing top 250 players, sheer numbers, or both will separate teams this early. Avery Roberts committed in April, so a bit of a dry spell on 250's and 11 total commits overall.

Simple ratio 11 to 20 would put us around 1850 points and maybe in the vicinity of a 21-25 ranked class. Not a prediction, just perspective.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

I always worry about recruiting. And there can be no doubt that we have hit a dry spell after some early success. Furthermore, I doubt we keep all the guys currently among our commits since every school has a few decommits along the way. So count me among those concerned.

All that said... We are in on some really exciting recruits. So hopefully things get really moving again over the next few months. It better.

 

[scarletred]

texass only has 6 commits... It's early to be too worried where we are sitting.

 

[Cornicator]

I bet Nebraska earns at least 4 to 5 more commits in August.

 

[Nate004]

I see a lot of mentions of us being in the 20-25 range. I hope not. Its top 15 or bust for me. 20-25 isn't going to get us where we need to be, and this may ruffles some feathers, but it needs to be said, 20-25 is a Pelini type class. I'm not making any judgements right now, only that when signing day comes, we need to be #15 or greater.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

I see a lot of mentions of us being in the 20-25 range. I hope not. Its top 15 or bust for me. 20-25 isn't going to get us where we need to be, and this may ruffles some feathers, but it needs to be said, 20-25 is a Pelini type class. I'm not making any judgements right now, only that when signing day comes, we need to be #15 or greater.

I agree 100%. This is Nebraska, not Iowa or Wisconsin. We need top 15 classes in order to compete with OSU and Michigan. I would consider a class rank of 20-25 to be a major fail. Might as well have kept Pelini. But I have hope this staff can get us in the 15-20 range this year and even higher after that if we have a good season this year.

This year is critical. Another 5-7 year and the knives will be out. That will drive our recruiting into a dumpster. We need AT LEAST a 7-5 season to keep our recruiting mojo going

 

[BigRedTed37]

Didn't some of our recruits also drop a bit in some of the sites rankings too? I thought I saw Gebbia dropped to a 3 star on one of the sites. I think some of that is due to guys like Gebbia not participating in a lot of the camps like Elite 11, The Opening, etc. I remember Gebbia saying he was going to focus on his team and not camps. I think Keyshawn Jr. was in the same boat on not going to all the camps that seem to boost your star ranking.

 

[shine003]

We haven't gained a lot. But we also have really one had one of our big time targets commit elsewhere recently (the cb to Oregon) unless I'm forgetting some.

 

[ellobo]

Didn't some of our recruits also drop a bit in some of the sites rankings too? I thought I saw Gebbia dropped to a 3 star on one of the sites. I think some of that is due to guys like Gebbia not participating in a lot of the camps like Elite 11, The Opening, etc. I remember Gebbia saying he was going to focus on his team and not camps. I think Keyshawn Jr. was in the same boat on not going to all the camps that seem to boost your star ranking.

I've been a paying member of a couple of these sites/networks since pretty much the beginning and the whole notion that players "drop" because of not attending camps is one of the most misunderstood things out there. What is actually happening is other players attend camps, have breakout performances and rise. When that happens it pushes everyone they jump in the top 247/250/300 down one spot and also everyone they jump in their position group. Now if that happens for a couple dozen or more players it gives the appearance of "non-movers" dropping.

Now of course going to camps can be a double edged sword because kids can have poor performances and drop. However, you tend to have more risers than fallers because more often than not the biggest movers tend to be unranked, 2*s or 3*s that the analysts knew little to nothing about. For example my school had two verbals, attend camps, shoot up the rankings getting a 4th* when one was unranked and the other a 3* before the summer. One kid is from New Mexico and the other is from Montreal Canada so it is safe to assume camp is probably the first time the analysts ever saw these kids live and against decent competition. Thus, again, the effect is it makes it seem like kids are "dropping" when in reality they just haven't been reevaluated and stayed in place (i.e. their RR or "numerical rating"...such a .912 on 247...has not changed) but new kids entering the top 247/250/300 means kids are getting displaced. Now if one of the sites did take a star away from Gebbia that is a different issue...you might want to find out why.

 

[dockentwo]

texass only has 6 commits... It's early to be too worried where we are sitting.

REMEMBER WHEN THEY WERE BASICALLY FULL OF TOP RATED TALENT ( and most all of Texas ) and out of scholarships after their Spring game. For real; high stars and full- year after year. One reason we got Burkhead ( though they made a late move I believe ). I would think this is ridiculous for them; something is going on; can't be a strategy. .... If we were at 20, some would be whining we should be saving potential spots.

 

[HBK4life]

texass only has 6 commits... It's early to be too worried where we are sitting.

And probably 2 or 3 of those they got because of Baylor commits jumping off the sinking ship and flipping to Texass. LOL....

 

[HuskerLLM]

Go to Av Star Ranking and re-compute your list

 

[otismotis08]

Go to Av Star Ranking and re-compute your list

...and we're still lagging behind our competition.

 

[DudznSudz]

Im kind of worried about the dry spell too.

Couple of thoughts:

It is super early to be worried, but you get used to success and this coaching staff had a LOT of good, early success with the 2017 class.

Second, tOSU and Michigan being so high up there, along with Alabama: This kind of irks me because we totally need to get into top 20 class recruitment in order to regularly compete with teams who are so loaded with 4-5 star talent that their backups are better than our starters. Does that ring a bell? That was us in the 90's. Our backup players would play half the game sometimes and still smoke everyone. I know dynasties happen, teams have darn near 10 years of solid football until their coach gets fired, retires, or arrested for something horrible. What their classes show is, having a coach with a crazy personality and/or a very, very solid track record of winning consistently is what brings in recruits. So, as everyone on this thread is saying, we have to kind of get up there too.

I hope we have a great August and September; if we hit the ground running during fall camp and in our first few games, that will do a lot to bring guys in. Again, we don't need to land a top 10 class this year, but we need to be well inside the top 25. I think it was said in this forum once that there really isn't a ton of difference between the top 10 or 15 classes in the country in terms of outcome once they start developing in a program (thats when coaching, conditioning, practice, etc starts to matter a lot), but after you get outside of the top 20 it starts to show in football quality. I agree, if we can't consistently land classes in the top 20, why did we get rid of Pelini? His classes tended to be at or just outside the top 25.

 

[Truehuskerfan]

It is really comical for people to be worried when we have 11 recruits at this point. That is the most we have ever had at this point. There's no relation to how many commits you have at this point and final ranking either-our best class in 2005 when we finished 5th, we had 8 commitments at this point. There's been a number of times in recent years when teams almost filled their classes out by the end of summer and thus were ranked very highly and then dropped steadily in the rankings as other teams got higher rated commitments and some of their commitments dropped as they underperformed in their senior years.
Ive basically just decided that there are certain people who are always predisposed to worrying and trying to find something that is wrong-if there isn't something obvious, they will look for something. They apparently have nothing better to do during the summer than finding something to b!tch about.

 

[Pennsyhusker]

It is really comical for people to be worried when we have 11 recruits at this point. That is the most we have ever had at this point. There's no relation to how many commits you have at this point and final ranking either-our best class in 2008 when we finished 5th, we had 8 commitments at this point. There's been a number of times in recent years when teams almost filled their classes out by the end of summer and thus were ranked very highly and then dropped steadily in the rankings as other teams got higher rated commitments and some of their commitments dropped as they underperformed in their senior years.
Ive basically just decided that there are certain people who are always predisposed to worrying and trying to find something that is wrong-if there isn't something obvious, they will look for something. They apparently have nothing better to do during the summer than finding something to b!tch about.

Not contesting your main point, but I have to question that we had the fifth best recruiting class in 2008. Did you mean 2004, Callahan's first year?

 

[Truehuskerfan]

Not contesting your main point, but I have to question that we had the fifth best recruiting class in 2008. Did you mean 2004, Callahan's first year?

Yes, I meant 2004.

 

[HuskerLLM]

...and we're still lagging behind our competition.

What is the ranking?

 

[Harry Caray]

We'll move up. I wouldn't trade recruiting classes with ISU, Northwestern, Iowa, Rutgers, etc. right now, even though they are ranked higher.

I am curious as to what we were ranked at this time last year, and how it compares to this year.

 

[ellobo]

Yes, I meant 2004.

I half agree with your point then (would still have if it was 2008 but since it was 2004 the part I disagree with I do so even more strongly). Recruiting has changed so much over the last 10+ years because of the percentage of kids committing earlier has increased exponentially (in fact, back in 2004 there were still plenty of programs that wouldn't even offer kids until the previous class was signed so unless it was a special situation you didn't have kids who could commit until months after their junior season...now you have some committing before it). Thus, the equivalent, today, of having 8 verbals at this time in 2004 would be at least double (16+). Which emphasizes the point that how many verbals you have at this time can certainly have an effect on where you end up in recruiting (e.g. in 2004 you had an incredibly fast start, for the time, and it netted you a top 5 class).

Yes, there are some classes that are fools gold but we are talking about the Northwesterns and Rutgers of the world whose classes will drop like a rock (in the rankings) because its 90% about quantity. However, for the top tier programs its all about momentum. Kids from all around the country are looking at the schools that currently have both quantity and quality and while it might not be the deciding factor for them it does get their attention and makes those schools more enticing. Simply put, most of the top kids want to play for NCs, do recognize when a program is putting together a monster class and do look at schools harder if they have that momentum...ok, maybe that wasn't so simply put, but, the point is top end verbals beget other top end verbals. In addition, having a top level early class also allows you to focus on fewer kids in which the attention can have an effect on who you close with (note: I'm not going to get into "processing" but I will say its not just an SEC thing anymore).

Now, where I do agree with you is it's not time to freak out. One of the more recent trends associated with ever increasing number of kids committing earlier each year is that kids doing it simply to reserve a spot in a class is no longer the exception to the rule nor is it just the domain of lower tier programs who have kids waiting on bigger offers...it now happens (quite regularly) to upper tier programs...tell me if you've heard this before: "I'm 100% solid but will take all 5 visits." That's not being committed (note: coaches are more than compliant with this...and there is that whole "processing" thing...so can't question the kids on this...it just is what it is these days). Thus many of the recruiting battles will be won in Jan/early Feb even for the "committed" kids...so in that respect it is hard to look at what classes look like now and feel confident about what they will look like on signing day...some will fall a part, some will shoot up the rankings, some will be happy to just hold onto what they have, etc...you just need to have patience at this point and see how things play out.

 

[JohnRossEwing]

If they finish right around 25… I think it's safe to say that most husker fans would be disappointed. With that said I hope they finish much better than that. If not it kind of is like the talking heads said "same as it ever was"

 

[nebcountry]

We'll move up. I wouldn't trade recruiting classes with ISU, Northwestern, Iowa, Rutgers, etc. right now, even though they are ranked higher.

I am curious as to what we were ranked at this time last year, and how it compares to this year.

Well Harry Caray, I don't have the team rankings, but I did do a straight-line projection around this time last year. Last year, we projected to a 30-35 finish, so we finished stronger at 26th (thank you Lamar Jackson).

 

[bigboxes]

Are we really worried? C'mon. The sky is falling crap is getting old. Here most of us were feeling pretty good about recruiting and the state of our program and then this is posted by one of our negative nellies (sorry Nikki, you are what you are). We're going to fill out our class and it won't be with just anyone. Our star rating will be higher than most. We probably won't get aTop 10 class. Who cares. What matters is that the staff is good a good talent evaluator. We've built relationships with top prospects across the country. In the end, after we've filled out our class, we'll move back up in the rankings as our average star ranking will be higher than those lessor schools.

 

[phoenix4nu]

Are we really worried? C'mon. The sky is falling crap is getting old. Here most of us were feeling pretty good about recruiting and the state of our program and then this is posted by one of our negative nellies (sorry Nikki, you are what you are). We're going to fill out our class and it won't be with just anyone. Our star rating will be higher than most. We probably won't get aTop 10 class. Who cares. What matters is that the staff is good a good talent evaluator. We've built relationships with top prospects across the country. In the end, after we've filled out our class, we'll move back up in the rankings as our average star ranking will be higher than those lessor schools.

I think a lot depends on how the season goes. A poor record will really hurt because there will be questions about Riley's future.

 

[huskerfan830]

Just opinion, but I think NU is in excellent position going into the season. I think you'll see kids committing seemingly every home game as they get their significant family here to see why they enjoy what NU has to offer. The final seals of approval.

 

[NikkiSixx]

Are we really worried? C'mon. The sky is falling crap is getting old. Here most of us were feeling pretty good about recruiting and the state of our program and then this is posted by one of our negative nellies (sorry Nikki, you are what you are). We're going to fill out our class and it won't be with just anyone. Our star rating will be higher than most. We probably won't get aTop 10 class. Who cares. What matters is that the staff is good a good talent evaluator. We've built relationships with top prospects across the country. In the end, after we've filled out our class, we'll move back up in the rankings as our average star ranking will be higher than those lessor schools.

I just asked a question. There has been some good discussion in this thread. I don't see anything here overly negative. I think they have been doing a good job recruiting, but obviously so have some other schools. I don't follow it day to day, so I was a little surprised at where we were sitting is all, but appreciate everyone's contributions in the discussion.

 

[SnohomishRed]

I just asked a question. There has been some good discussion in this thread. I don't see anything here overly negative. I think they have been doing a good job recruiting, but obviously so have some other schools. I don't follow it day to day, so I was a little surprised at where we were sitting is all, but appreciate everyone's contributions in the discussion.

Have to agree it's not negative to wonder where we are going to end up before it happens. If the staff had a track record of really good classes the yes questioning the ranking now is negative. Right now there is reason for both negative thinking and positive thinking and you can argue things both ways. Until this Staff gets a track record here that is just the way it is

 

[otismotis08]

We need to consistently compete for B1G titles. This won't happen until we match recruiting with our competitors.

 

[Suvey101885]

Yes, I meant 2004.

I believe it was the 2005 class that was rated highly. We also had 32 recruits in that class with an average ranking of 3.13, which isn't stellar.

 

[nebcountry]

I believe it was the 2005 class that was rated highly. We also had 32 recruits in that class with an average ranking of 3.13, which isn't stellar.

Two 5* and eleven 4* recruits with Suh being the ultimate gem of that class. Do that about three times in a row and we'll be likely be talkin' national championships again.

 

[Suvey101885]

How many busts, transfers, and others who didn't contribute though? I know I'm getting off track, but that class was highly overrated.

 

[tone1017]

The interest and repeated visits of highly ranked guys is step one and also huge, especially because many of these prospects come from high schools that produce elite talent year after year. Being a familiar face in those schools and being seen as a viable option is huge for getting visits from younger guys. But step two is getting those elite guys to sign. Goodwill and repeated visits and flowery interviews only go so far, finishing second for a bunch of these elite guys does little good. Ultimately we've got a ton of time and I'm not worried, it's not like a ton of our top targets have been committing other places, they just haven't decided yet. And I like a lot of the guys we've already got on board, but if we fail to convert a decent amount of these highly rated visitors, then all of this "momentum" doesn't mean much. Nebraska knows their best asset is official visits. Getting these guys to see the tradition, the fans, just the whole game day experience is by far our best recruiting tool and I would imagine that a lot of these guys will see that and our conversion rate for official visitors to commitments will be very high.

 

[Cornicator]

I agree 100%. This is Nebraska, not Iowa or Wisconsin. We need top 15 classes in order to compete with OSU and Michigan. I would consider a class rank of 20-25 to be a major fail. Might as well have kept Pelini. But I have hope this staff can get us in the 15-20 range this year and even higher after that if we have a good season this year.

This year is critical. Another 5-7 year and the knives will be out. That will drive our recruiting into a dumpster. We need AT LEAST a 7-5 season to keep our recruiting mojo going

I think there is a distinction between a Riley #25 and a Bo #25 class. Bo used to sign players just to sign them irregardless of how they fit into the scholarship distribution. That's why Nebraska basically had 3 scholarship linebackers when Riley arrived in Lincoln. Mike Riley has illustrated there is clear direction and planning with the way they target recruits.

Kids are going to leave. Some will get into trouble. Some will have injury issues. And some of them will struggle with grades. That's going to happen to every recruiting class at every program in America. So you better recruit evenly across your depth chart. And you better have plan A, B, C, D. And so on. Bo often had very good Plan A options. But if plan A said no, he didn't have plan b,c, or D. He decided to search the bottom of the barrel late in the game. And if he struck out with plan A at a position of need, he often just ignored that position completely.

I will always argue Nebraska didn't lose multiple games to teams like Northwestern or Minnesota or Iowa state or Iowa because of talent issues under Bo. Hell, many of his front line guys were good enough to win 10 or 11 games. But he never recruited evenly and always kept scholarship holes on his roster and in the depth chart. He didn't recruit enough of them.

 

[Truehuskerfan]

I believe it was the 2005 class that was rated highly. We also had 32 recruits in that class with an average ranking of 3.13, which isn't stellar.

Yes-it was 2005. I knew it was Callahan's first full class-just can't get my years straight.

 

[GBRhuskers]

I'd take another class of 2005 again, and so should every Husker fan in the world.

1. Best defensive player in the history of Nebraska football, Suh
2. Big 12 offensive player of the year, Taylor
3. Career top 5 all purpose yards back, Lucky
4. Freshmen all american, Turner
5. Five NFL drafts; Suh, Slauson, Dillard, Bowman, Glenn (low number for 32 signees)
   • Multiple others signed FA deals, some making teams; Potter, Octavien plus Turner played a few games

 

[Pennsyhusker]

I think there is a distinction between a Riley #25 and a Bo #25 class. Bo used to sign players just to sign them irregardless of how they fit into the scholarship distribution. That's why Nebraska basically had 3 scholarship linebackers when Riley arrived in Lincoln. Mike Riley has illustrated there is clear direction and planning with the way they target recruits.

Kids are going to leave. Some will get into trouble. Some will have injury issues. And some of them will struggle with grades. That's going to happen to every recruiting class at every program in America. So you better recruit evenly across your depth chart. And you better have plan A, B, C, D. And so on. Bo often had very good Plan A options. But if plan A said no, he didn't have plan b,c, or D. He decided to search the bottom of the barrel late in the game. And if he struck out with plan A at a position of need, he often just ignored that position completely.

I will always argue Nebraska didn't lose multiple games to teams like Northwestern or Minnesota or Iowa state or Iowa because of talent issues under Bo. Hell, many of his front line guys were good enough to win 10 or 11 games. But he never recruited evenly and always kept scholarship holes on his roster and in the depth chart. He didn't recruit enough of them.

Good point about Pelini's recruiting, and I agree. Nevertheless, I still hope Riley can get us out of that mid 20's range. I think he can if we start having solid seasons again.

 

[DudznSudz]

I think there is a distinction between a Riley #25 and a Bo #25 class. Bo used to sign players just to sign them irregardless of how they fit into the scholarship distribution. That's why Nebraska basically had 3 scholarship linebackers when Riley arrived in Lincoln. Mike Riley has illustrated there is clear direction and planning with the way they target recruits.

Kids are going to leave. Some will get into trouble. Some will have injury issues. And some of them will struggle with grades. That's going to happen to every recruiting class at every program in America. So you better recruit evenly across your depth chart. And you better have plan A, B, C, D. And so on. Bo often had very good Plan A options. But if plan A said no, he didn't have plan b,c, or D. He decided to search the bottom of the barrel late in the game. And if he struck out with plan A at a position of need, he often just ignored that position completely.

I will always argue Nebraska didn't lose multiple games to teams like Northwestern or Minnesota or Iowa state or Iowa because of talent issues under Bo. Hell, many of his front line guys were good enough to win 10 or 11 games. But he never recruited evenly and always kept scholarship holes on his roster and in the depth chart. He didn't recruit enough of them.

I think that is by and large accurate. Bo seemed to always get consistently "ok" classes, enough to win as much as he was winning (and even that had a lot to do with the excellent facilities and development opportunities our program offers, i.e., we may have been punching a little above our weight there). In order to really become a nationally relevant team again, we have to be able to challenge and beat tOSU, Michigan, and MSU. We may even have to worry about Penn State being tough again once their ship is righted. That means we have to pull in recruiting classes that are at least CLOSE to the top 10 level classes 2 of those 4 programs are going to be getting fairly regularly (until Urban Meyer returns to Hell to resume ruling it, or Jim Harbaugh actually explodes).

That means top 20 classes, and regularly. So, yeah, that means winning records, bowl appearances, and no more embarrassing blow-out losses or losses to bottom feeding programs (sorry, Purdue, you're just not that good). I think these coaches know how to recruit very, very well, but the program itself has to back up their efforts too.