Recruiting Disparity

[St. Anger]

Just a rando thought I was having, but there may be a much bigger gap in recruiting rankings than it may first appear. So, the talent distance between a top 5 class and a top 25 class is a much larger gap than it appears on paper. Some of the schools in the top 10 just seem light years ahead of, say, teams in the 21-30 range in the polls.

I used to think, for example, "We're only 20 spots back from being a top 5 class, that's pretty good." Now I'm thinking that's a much larger talent gap than it would appear.

Any thoughts on that?

 

[nothingkevin]

It is a big gap.

 

[otismotis08]

Absolutely. It really becomes apparent when you watch tOSU, Bama, etc. and can't help but drool...

 

[Headcard]

I'm not sure. As a rule, I would say it is a very big gap that is difficult to overcome on a regular basis.

When you look at teams like FSU and Alabama that consistently recruit Top 5 classes, it looks huge. They are deep and loaded at every position. But then when you look at Tennessee that recruits Top 5-10 classes, they look terrible: sloppy slow, etc.

On the flip side. Look at Michigan State, who doesn't recruit in their stratosphere. Yet they look big, strong and fast and put a ton of guys in the NFL.

Also look at Oregon, a team that recruits similar to Nebraska. In their system their kids play fast and win a ton of big games. While Nebraska has not.

 

[jflores]

Over the years we've heard recruiting analysts say that 1-5 is pretty tight, and that stuff in the 6-15 is varying degrees of fungible. Some guys even say 11-25 might well just be one tier.

Certainly programs like Oregon and MSU recruit at a level that NU can attain and look drastically different than we do.

There's no question that recruiting matters, but MSU is not getting blown away. For all the last regime's ills, we played Georgia well and SC well. Its not like we "didn't even belong on the field with them". Bonehead mistakes killed us in the SC game particularly, more than any real disparity in talent.

 

[Cornicator]

Actually, I think it depends on what positions the teams are pulling into their programs. I will use Penn State as an example.

They have been killing it the last 2 seasons and going into 2016 with receivers, backs, linebackers and DB's. But their offensive line allowed 10 sacks to Temple... Freaking Temple.

The #57 WR in the top 100 counts the same as the #56 OT. But which dude is more important? Tennessee has also seen a lot of similar recruiting efforts. Their classes have been money for the last 3 seasons. But if you sign 50 kids in 2 years and 20% of those kids are running backs and QB's, are you really signing an elite class? YOu might be aiding your QB competition, but only one guy can play at those positions.

Offensive and Defensive linemen win championships.

 

[nebcountry]

Just my opinion and based on rivals rankings only:

From a probability standpoint, it's a big difference. Big as in like gigantic.

Unless you are recruiting at the very top, how good you'll be hinges on your recruiting "hits" and "misses". And is your "hit" a qb or cb, because position impact is different. In the vicinity of a 25th ranking, you'll have a handful of rivals top 250 players. Will they be "hits" or "misses" in terms of playing up to their potential. If you can recruit in the top 5 on a fairly consistent basis, your team will be loaded with "hits" and the "misses" just don't matter.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember reading a ranking the recruiters article in terms of producing top players (anyone is welcome to correct me with the right numbers):

1 in 12 5 stars goes on to be a top player
1 in 30 4 stars ""
1 in 300 3 stars ""
1 in 1200 2 stars ""

So, if you can recruit higher, then you have a better shot at difference makers versus role players. Of course a 5 star player doesn't guarantee greatness.

Oregon is a great example of making more with perceived less. Oregon's "less" is still better than what we've done in terms of recruiting rankings. Mariota a 3 star player in the most important position that goes on to be a great college football player. You can still get "hits" not recruiting as well, probability just doesn't favor you.

 

[St. Anger]

When you look at teams like FSU and Alabama that consistently recruit Top 5 classes, it looks huge. They are deep and loaded at every position. But then when you look at Tennessee that recruits Top 5-10 classes, they look terrible: sloppy slow, etc.

Can throw Michigan in with that Tennessee group.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan_rivals19671]

Drawing on memory, which is really dangerous for me....But it seems like a lot of Bo's better classes, IE, higher ranked guys, left the program or went on to play baseball instead. Class that Starling was in comes to mind. Starling never played a snap for us, Cody Green transfers, Tyler Moore (and I can't remember what class he was in) transfers. Several 4 stars were total busts, 4 star d-lineman lineman who's name escape me now but everyone would remember him was a total bust and transferred (Rome?). Etc, etc. So while Bo's classes looked respectable from time to time, so many of the kids never played a snap here, left the program, or were total busts. Year after year it happened, so we never really had the top 20-25 class the recruiting rankings suggested we did.

 

[steerman]

I don't post often but here goes.... I have always believed if you can recruit 5 straight classes in the teens 13 to 19 and have good coaching you will have the depth of talent to compete for a top 5 year end ranking. Hey I could be wrong just an observation.

 

[jeans15]

Baylor, MSU and TCU are in the top 7.

We recruited on paper better than all 3 the last 5 years.

We need a good coach, hope we have one now.

 

[Shimmer003]

There's a lot more to recruiting than your ranking. It's about recruiting with a philosophy. Knowing how a great player will fit into your system when you start recruiting him. I feel like many times the last staff just tried to recruit the best guys they could to NU but had no idea what to do with them or how to make them all work together. The reason Baylor, TCU, Oregon etc do well with not being in the top 5 is that they recruit top talent to key positions (QB namely) and then get players that fit their system everywhere else. You don't need the best players in the country to win, you need the best players that fit your system in the country to win. The two are not the same.

 

[jflores]

Drawing on memory, which is really dangerous for me....But it seems like a lot of Bo's better classes, IE, higher ranked guys, left the program or went on to play baseball instead. Class that Starling was in comes to mind. Starling never played a snap for us, Cody Green transfers, Tyler Moore (and I can't remember what class he was in) transfers. Several 4 stars were total busts, 4 star d-lineman lineman who's name escape me now but everyone would remember him was a total bust and transferred (Rome?). Etc, etc. So while Bo's classes looked respectable from time to time, so many of the kids never played a snap here, left the program, or were total busts. Year after year it happened, so we never really had the top 20-25 class the recruiting rankings suggested we did.

NU hasn't had much luck with the higher rated prospects, and it goes back further than Pelini. Most of our QB's over the last however many years going back to Dukes have been 4 stars. And the dudes who were the best were Ganz, TMart, and Taylor, and now Tommy as a 4 star is starting to show it.

We had Lucky who was a 5 star, but I'd take any of Helu, Abdullah or Burkhead. I think Rex was a 4*, but the other two weren't. All over the field you can find dudes who fans weren't high on as recruits, but were our better performers. Like the safety Alexander, now departed whose sole offer was Toledo I think.

I'm not saying NU shouldn't go after high rated players, we want Top 5 classes if we can get them, but our heroes have all been basically 3 stars for some odd reason even though we pull in our fair share of 4* guys.

 

[MateenCleaves]

Baylor, MSU and TCU are in the top 7.

We recruited on paper better than all 3 the last 5 years.

We need a good coach, hope we have one now.

Nebraska hasn't recruited better than MSU since the 2013 class according to rankings. More important than rankings, it comes down to who else is offering a prospect. MSU beating out Alabama, ND, USC, etc. for a "3-star" speaks louder than getting a 4-star with no offers, IMO. The rankings don't always reflect that.

 

[HuskerO58]

Baylor, MSU and TCU are in the top 7.

We recruited on paper better than all 3 the last 5 years.

We need a good coach, hope we have one now.

I'm curious is to how Baylor, MSU and TCU's attrition is/was? For example Bo's 2011 recruiting class with;
4* Tyler Moore
4* Aaron Green
4* Todd Peat Jr.
4*Ryan Klochko
4* Bubba Starling

While at that time it looked great, but none of those players made it past their sophomore years at Nebraska (EDIT: I think). This is very important in regards to recruiting classes vs how much of that class actually stay.

 

[litespeedhuskerfan_rivals19671]

I'm curios is to how Baylor, MSU and TCU's attrition is/was? For example Bo's 2011 recruiting class with;
4* Tyler Moore
4* Aaron Green
4* Todd Peat Jr.
4*Ryan Klochko
4* Bubba Starling

While at that time it looked great, but none of those players made it past their sophomore years at Nebraska (EDIT: I think). This is very important in regards to recruiting classes vs how much of that class actually stay.

You said it better than me. I don't know where that class ended up being ranked, but let's say it was #20 WITH those guys. Without them, it's more like 48. Which is why we struggle to beat a team like BYU, or anyone with a pulse recently.

 

[jeans15]

Basically I just think we need coaching.

The guys on the field now are from the 2011,12,13, 14 classes.

MSU recruited better than us in 2014 and 2015?

So whats the excuse?

And according to results on the field, they should only have one victory over us in 2013.

The gap isn't that far at all imo. We have a QB that was higher than Manziel and Mariotta coming out of high school.

Its the coaching that's been lacking.

 

[HuskerO58]

Basically I just think we need coaching.

The guys on the field now are from the 2011,12,13, 14 classes.

MSU recruited better than us in 2014 and 2015?

So whats the excuse?

And according to results on the field, they should only have one victory over us in 2013.

The gap isn't that far at all imo. We have a QB that was higher than Manziel and Mariotta coming out of high school.

Its the coaching that's been lacking.

I agree 100%. It's just when the statements of, "we recruited better than (insert team), etc, etc".... But did we REALLY recruit better than those teams? It's really impossible to tell until that recruiting class in 2-4 years in. But I totally get and agree with what you're saying.

 

[HuskerO58]

You said it better than me. I don't know where that class ended up being ranked, but let's say it was #20 WITH those guys. Without them, it's more like 48. Which is why we struggle to beat a team like BYU, or anyone with a pulse recently.

According to Rivals were were ranking #15. You're probably correct that we finish #48 or worse without those guys. I know those slots get filled, but I doubt they're filled with other 4* recruits.

 

[NeverTellMeTheOdds]

I enjoy Bartoo's (CFB matrix) thoughts on this. Since 2002 only once has a team played in a BCS national championship game (or playoff game) and had a 5 year average recruiting ranking above #16. All of the national champions in that time frame were top 16 recruiters.

If you're not a top 16 recruiter, you can't win a national title. At least that is what the last 14 years tell us.

I do believe the trend will break in the near future. No one in the B1G West is a top 16 recruiter, however, every year they are going to get a chance to win the B1G title. If Wisconsin were to win out this year (which is possible because their remaining schedule is fairly soft), and they beat OSU in the B1G championship (by the end of the season OSU could have injuries, suspensions, other off the field issues...), they're going to be in the playoff (only loss would be to bama). Baylor and TCU are not top 16 recruiters, but there is a good chance they make the playoff (I think they need to be undefeated to make it).

Once you're in the playoff, I think anything can happen. Talent is equalized because you've had a full year of injuries and development.

 

[jflores]

I enjoy Bartoo's (CFB matrix) thoughts on this. Since 2002 only once has a team played in a BCS national championship game (or playoff game) and had a 5 year average recruiting ranking above #16. All of the national champions in that time frame were top 16 recruiters.

If you're not a top 16 recruiter, you can't win a national title. At least that is what the last 14 years tell us.

I do believe the trend will break in the near future. No one in the B1G West is a top 16 recruiter, however, every year they are going to get a chance to win the B1G title. If Wisconsin were to win out this year (which is possible because their remaining schedule is fairly soft), and they beat OSU in the B1G championship (by the end of the season OSU could have injuries, suspensions, other off the field issues...), they're going to be in the playoff (only loss would be to bama). Baylor and TCU are not top 16 recruiters, but there is a good chance they make the playoff (I think they need to be undefeated to make it).

Once you're in the playoff, I think anything can happen. Talent is equalized because you've had a full year of injuries and development.

This will almost undoubtedly be true. In the past making the top 2 was equal parts play on the field and beauty pageant among the elite names. Now if you are going to have to prove it in a field of four or eight you are going to have years where say a six seed knocks off a blue blood or whatever. CFB will be more NFL ish and the Packers won't be in the super bowl every year cause they sell the most jerseys

 

[z28craz]

Drawing on memory, which is really dangerous for me....But it seems like a lot of Bo's better classes, IE, higher ranked guys, left the program or went on to play baseball instead. Class that Starling was in comes to mind. Starling never played a snap for us, Cody Green transfers, Tyler Moore (and I can't remember what class he was in) transfers. Several 4 stars were total busts, 4 star d-lineman lineman who's name escape me now but everyone would remember him was a total bust and transferred (Rome?). Etc, etc. So while Bo's classes looked respectable from time to time, so many of the kids never played a snap here, left the program, or were total busts. Year after year it happened, so we never really had the top 20-25 class the recruiting rankings suggested we did.

I think there's a lot of truth there. I'm excited about the Riley hire, and I think there were some things on Saturday that give me reason to be optimistic long term, but IMO this is the year that Bo's recruiting (or lack thereof) is really going to rear it's ugly head. The lack of depth across both lines and at Linebacker are very concerning. For a guy who was supposed to be a defensive guru Bo was crap at recruiting. Every once in awhile he was able to get a lighting rod, and was able to salvage another 9 win season because of that one playmaker. But frankly, outside of maybe DPE and Westy, we don't have a game changer on either side of the ball. The past few years Bo was able to ride the coat tails of game changers like Ameer, Burkhead, Helu and Martinez (and Bell and Paul and Kinney). Same on the defensive side of the ball with guys like Gregory, Ankarah and even going back as far as Suh, Dennard, Amukamara, Asante and David. But I think this year, even if Bo were here, the jig is up. We just don't have those game changers this year like we did the past 5-7 seasons. Outside of Collins and Rose-Ivey we don't have a dynamic player among the front 7. Same thing on offense. We have DPE and Westy, I'm pleased with Armstrong and Wilbon, and Morgan and Moore show a lot of promise. But along the line there is no one dynamic, and unless that player steps up, our position guys can only do so much. They have to have room to run and that has to be created by the Oline. There is a lot of young potential with guys that could develop into game changers, but they are young and it seems the drop off from the 1's to the 2's is fairly significant. I think we're going to struggle because of lack of depth, which I directly attribute to lack of recruiting by the previous staff.

 

[gotit2013]

Just a rando thought I was having, but there may be a much bigger gap in recruiting rankings than it may first appear. So, the talent distance between a top 5 class and a top 25 class is a much larger gap than it appears on paper. Some of the schools in the top 10 just seem light years ahead of, say, teams in the 21-30 range in the polls.

I used to think, for example, "We're only 20 spots back from being a top 5 class, that's pretty good." Now I'm thinking that's a much larger talent gap than it would appear.

Any thoughts on that?

It's a major gap!! Most of those schools have 5 or 6 top 100s each year. If 3 or 4 pan out then you're talking about 10 to 12 of the starting 22. That's the top 100 high schoolers and 40 to 50 percent of the starters. If Neb gets 1 top 100 (which isn't happening) and half pan out then you're talking about 2 on the field or less than 10 percent. HUGE gap if that makes sense.

 

[jeans15]

We need to over sign every year imo.

Bout time we play by the rules of the rest of college football.

 

[z28craz]

We need to over sign every year imo.

Bout time we play by the rules of the rest of college football.

Yep. I wonder how many times over the past decade we've started the season without a maximum number of scholorship players? If you sign the maximum in February and lose several due to guys transfering, leaving the team for personal reasons, guys being dismissed from the team ect, if you don't oversign you're automatically at a disadvantage every season just in development alone.

 

[NikkiSixx_rivals269993]

We need to over sign every year imo.

Bout time we play by the rules of the rest of college football.

But now that isn't possible with the 4 year scholarship right?

 

[jeans15]

But now that isn't possible with the 4 year scholarship right?

If it isn't we're screwed.

Academics and behavior issues become the excuse for roster management. Lacking in either one. Bye

 

[tMSU]

But now that isn't possible with the 4 year scholarship right?

Coaches simply run off the kids who don't make the cut. The math is pretty interesting....The SEC oversigning essentially results in those schools getting 5 full recruiting classes every 4 year cycle. Quite an advantage.

That's a little different than taking a couple extra kids to compensate for attrition.