Quick Question
- Thread starter Archie Graham
- Start date
I think you can call Mike Riley's job so far a better then trending upwards. The coaching job he did last year was damn good. And now his recruiting is landing top players. Gotta love it!
I think Nikki is in the "anybody but Riley group" or the Nebraska transition: Scott Frost for Head Coach..
I'm sticking with my stance on this one. We did have a losing record last year.
Last edited:
Obviously we have to win games. Zero posters are suggesting otherwise.
I guess I just find it funny that there are those on here who are the exuberance police and feel compelled to let us know when our exuberance becomes irrational.
If the happiness of some posters bothers you, I suggest participating in a different thread.
If the happiness of some posters bothers you, I suggest participating in a different thread.
I find it funny that posters would create a thread on this topic asking for the participation of those that disagree and then attempt to call out those people who don't want to vigorously celebrate the 18th place team recruiting ranking.
An exceptionally poor evaluation metric (current class ranking) among a myriad of better options leads to an unenthusiastic response. You're welcome to start evaluating the bigger recruiting picture if you wish. Or you can use one metric (like final team ranking, e.g., 2005) and fail to document that the class had 32 signees which drastically over-estimates the quality of the class as a whole.
I think you are forgetting about the 11 4-star effort in 2011, and the 8 4-star class in 2010. The coaches are doing pretty well, but they need to start closing on more highly regarded players. We've had 4 3-star commits in a row, and need to get more difference makers in the fray. (Edit: 3 3-stars in a row).
Getting 4 and 5-star guys on campus is great, and admittedly the recruiting cycle is generally longer for them, but we still only have 4 4-star players committed out of 10. That equates to very similar numbers to Bo's 2010 and 2011 classes. The difference would be that Bo had more 2-star guys in his classes.
I'm no fan of Bo, but he and his staff brought in a few pretty decent classes. They couldn't keep the highly regarded players on campus, but they recruited pretty well in a few classes. We need to get around 10 4-stars every recruiting class to keep pace with the Ohio States, Michigans, Michigan States, and Penn States of the conference.
Last edited:
The top 20 recruits of each class are what count toward class ranking.
I'm not saying Riley and his staff are doing poorly. It appears that they have very solid momentum. I'm more so just waiting to see where we are at when Feb. rolls around.
Last edited:
Haven't we discussed a million times Bo's failings in keeping his top recruits???
Did I not discuss that in the very last paragraph? Use your eyes for goodness sakes.
Would you please try to make sense once in a while. It really makes things much more interesting for the reader.
I also find it funny that people bend over backwards to poo poo the positive vibes coming out of recruiting at the present time.
Look, we had people saying Riley's recruiting wouldn't be any better at Nebraska than it was at Oregon state. People like Archie and RR and me and many others were preaching patience to let him see what he could do, but there were a lot (who are absent from this thread) who wouldn't even let that happen. They were convinced he would suck. This thread is for them.
I guess it's just easier to say Bobot. It must explain how some were so easily fooled by Mr. Pelini.
I actually think Riley's staff recruited fairly well at Oregon State, considering their location and facilities. I always thought they would do pretty well here, considering that they brought in a lot of 3-stars at Oregon State. I would like to see a bit more recruiting activity by a few of our position coaches though.
There are positive vibes coming on the recruiting trail. It's great that the coaching staff either desires or feels the need to compete at the highest level for recruits.
Edit: That's my honest response. It doesn't fit the tone of the OP though.
Last edited:
Again, if you could try to have an ounce of insight to your posts, we, the reader, would be eternally appreciative. It's not that terribly difficult to remember those that were Bo supporters and those that weren't. I started questioning his leadership as early as 2011, and thought he needed to go in 2012.
Fwiw, as an outside opinion...
I would think success in recruiting (at the current time) would be finishing 3rd in the conference and 1st in the west...say around a top 10-15 class? Does that sound fair?
That wasn't the formula in 2005.
They all counted in some way to the final ranking. I think? I can't recall exactly how though.
Last edited:
I guess I have to say it in plain English for some.
Pelini's recruiting numbers didn't matter a hill of beans cause he ran off the highly rated one or they didn't contribute when all was said and done. Smoke and mirrors. Don't write a 500 word essay on Pelini's good recruiting numbers when in the end the essay is worthless. Kind of like Bo himself. I find it incredibly disingenuous to question Riley by praising Bo's failings as a coach. And that's exactly what you're doing.
Pelini's recruiting numbers didn't matter a hill of beans cause he ran off the highly rated one or they didn't contribute when all was said and done. Smoke and mirrors. Don't write a 500 word essay on Pelini's good recruiting numbers when in the end the essay is worthless. Kind of like Bo himself. I find it incredibly disingenuous to question Riley by praising Bo's failings as a coach. And that's exactly what you're doing.
Eh...I think that really depends. There is a big difference between accepting a 3 star commitment in June who is near the top of your board vs. scrambling to fill a class in Janruary with three star players. If our coaches identity 3 star talent and WANT their commitment in June I'm totally on board. But, in general, I agree with your commentary. I think we will finish with a top 15 class.
I think you are pretty close. If we were to bring in 10 4-stars or better each year, it will place us inside the Top 20 in recruiting, probably 1st in the West, and 3rd or 4th in the conference. That would meet my expectations every year.
I would be happy with a Top 20 class every year, because that would bring 9 or 10 4-star recruits into the program every year. Getting that many highly touted players each year is ample to have a shot at winning the conference.
Rivals used to have some formula that nobody understood (including people at rivals)...it was supposed to give more weight to the top half of a class but really didn't and was supposed to give minimal weight to size of class but didn't quite do that either...it even had one weird part of the equation that penalized you for landing a 2*...so by adding a player you actually could drop in the rankings...
Net being you are not incorrect in that size of classes mattered but it wasn't as linear and straight forward to mean that size of class was a dominant factor in ranking unless you were talking huge differences in class sizes
Last edited:
One thing that's a little unfair in your 2010 and 2011 examples are that the rankings have been finalized (obviously) for those recruiting classes. Some of our current 3-stars could get star bumps between now and signing day. I know you're not arguing otherwise, but you comment "we still only have 4 4-star players committed out of 10" could change without adding any additional recruits.
Sounds about right. I remember it being a bit of a guessing game for fans attempting to calculate. Personally speaking, I'd still argue that the whole of our current recruiting infrastructure is better than it was then...hence, the recruiting machine at Nebraska right now is the best it's been in two decades.
Let me help you out here. Recruiting is recruiting. Getting a signature in early Feb. is a completely different animal than keeping the talent in the program. If you are going to comment on Pelini not being able to keep talent in the program, shouldn't you also include losing 3 quality DTs and a starting OLinemen that should have stayed under Riley? Regardless, we haven't really had enough time to be able to determine if Riley will be able to keep his talented players here, so once again, you're all wet.
And once again, you make absolutely no sense with the following sentence.
"I find it incredibly disingenuous to question Riley by praising Bo's failings as a coach."
Ya see, throwing words on a screen doesn't mean they will end up making sense. I never praised Bo's "failings" as a coach, whatever that is supposed to mean. I praised his recruiting in a couple of his recruiting classes, but have questioned his abilities as a head coach since at least 2011.
Last edited:
I don't think that's fair. Attrition of players you recruited/developed is different than attrition during a transition year after a coaching change.
But I do agree recruiting is a different beast than attrition.
Let's be honest, these players chose to leave after their 2nd spring practice under Riley's staff. That's not good. Granted, our DTs left because of a poor DLine coach, but that's still on Riley. And losing a starter on the OLine was very disconcerting to me.
You must play a lot of checkers? You pretty much worked through my comment. But I find it interesting that you couldn't understand it.
You compared it to attrition under Bo. That's not appropriate.
We've already covered the DL thing. Hughes was garbage, got swiftly fired, and replaced by a guy who appears to be off to a great start. The mistake hurt but it couldn't have been handled more swiftly.