No, Bo's classes were far better than Rileys in comparison to other Big Ten teams. He was third in every meaningful category.
![]()
After seeing this, I had to go back and look at Wisconsin's recruiting rankings...
HOLY CRAP! They sucked at recruiting!!!
No, Bo's classes were far better than Rileys in comparison to other Big Ten teams. He was third in every meaningful category.
![]()
Nope. The results bear that. Kids that never stick around are misses. Please tell us another story of how Osborne held the program back Grammy Tranny Preacher.Sooooooooo...for a long span of time Bo was recruiting as well as Riley with 1/3 the budget?
I don't buy into "we had the 42nd ranked class last year" because of our misses. I doubt you do either.Nope. The results beat that. Kids that never stick around are misses. Please tell us another story of how Osborne held the program back Grammy Tranny Preacher.
Last year was full of misses. But I am sure it was because Bounds and the Regents were "kicking Riley in the balls" or some other pathetic lying crap.I don't buy into "we had the 42nd ranked class last year" because of our misses. I doubt you do either.
The numbers tell the story about how we have recruited. While our recruiting has stayed the same with Riley, some of the other Big Ten schools have recruited even better. We either need a coach who can recruit better than what we have seen recently or find a way to get more out of our players ala a Wisky or Okie State or TCU. Or preferably both.Last year was full of misses. But I am sure it was because Bounds and the Regents were "kicking Riley in the balls" or some other pathetic lying crap.
Good. We need more highly rated players.4* Christian Tutt says we are the front runner after his visit this weekend.
So what is it today ma'am? Thong or bikinis?Good. We need more highly rated players.
IF you re-rank our class due to misses you have to do the same for every single program. You can't say we were 42 without doing that. Quit your dishonest trolling please.I don't buy into "we had the 42nd ranked class last year" because of our misses. I doubt you do either.
Yep...Reranking is dumb.IF you re-rank our class due to misses you have to do the same for every single program. You can't say we were 42 without doing that. Quit your dishonest trolling please.
This is spot on. I'm sure I missed 2 pages of people pissing on the OP for personal reasons, but these are facts. The #1 reason people hold up about why Riley must stay is recruiting. His recruiting hasn't been anything special. It's been trending in a more positive direction, but NU is still looking WAY up at OSU, UM and PSU.I keep hearing about how good our recruiting is under Riley. We have had classes of #31, #24, and #20. Yet, it is hard to find aggregate totals so I put some together for the Big Ten.
I have three questions:
1. Are we satisfied with our rankings as compared to other Big Ten teams during this tenure?
We are tied for fourth in 5 stars at 0
We are fifth in 4 stars.
We are second in 3 stars.
We are fifth in average star.
We are fifth in total points.
We are first in all those categories (except # of 3 stars) in the West.
2. Is this the best recruiting that we can expect at Nebraska?
3. Why do we consider Riley a good/great recruiter?
![]()
This is spot on. I'm sure I missed 2 pages of people pissing on the OP for personal reasons, but these are facts. The #1 reason people hold up about why Riley must stay is recruiting. His recruiting hasn't been anything special. It's been trending in a more positive direction, but NU is still looking WAY up at OSU, UM and PSU.
*** Courtesy of Tuco ***This is spot on. I'm sure I missed 2 pages of people pissing on the OP for personal reasons, but these are facts. The #1 reason people hold up about why Riley must stay is recruiting. His recruiting hasn't been anything special. It's been trending in a more positive direction, but NU is still looking WAY up at OSU, UM and PSU.
Always? Cally got a top ten class. Frank had three top ten classes. Lord knows how many top ten classes Dr. Tom had. Always?And they always will be looking up at OSU, UM and PSU. They looked up at those schools, in recruiting since the beginning of time. .
I'm not saying SE stringing Bo along didn't hurt anything, but which prospect decided not to come to Nebraska because they didn't know if Bo would be around or not?If you take off Bo's last class that SE ruined, Bo's numbers are easily better across the board.
Always? Cally got a top ten class. Frank had three top ten classes. Lord knows how many top ten classes Dr. Tom had. Always?
I'm not saying SE stringing Bo along didn't hurt anything, but which prospect decided not to come to Nebraska because they didn't know if Bo would be around or not?
No need to go back before 1990. I have already showed you three instances (1998, 2000, and 2001) where this very company who runs and owns this site said Frank had three top ten classes.Yes always. No offense man but you cant judge recruiting classes with any sort of accuracy prior to maybe 1990. Each magazine's rankings were 1 guys opinion on what the class looked like, based on what the high school coaches, that he trusted, shared with them. Very little game film evaluation. Top coaches had top talent. The recruiting rankings were basically the same as the final AP top 25.
And even back then Ohio St, Michigan and Penn St were pulling in classes better than Nebraska. But please pull out your 1986 Street and Smith's magazine with the 2 pages that were devote to recruiting and prove me wrong.
*** Courtesy of Tuco ***
You must of brushed right by this one
"4 and 5 stars as a pct of total recruits
2012 6/17 - 35%
2013 5/25 - 20%
2014 4/25 - 16%
2015 6/21 - 29%
2016 4/21 - 19%
2017 7/20 - 35%
there is improvement"
See the trend? Yeah that is a good thing!
No need to go back before 1990. I have already showed you three instances (1998, 2000, and 2001) where this very company who runs and owns this site said Frank had three top ten classes.
2018 can't be counted, as anything can happen and we always fare better early in the recruiting cycle.
I see one class where Riley had a 9% better and a 3% better.
Not exactly head and shoulders better than snotty sleeves Pelini
Of course not, doesn't fit your narrative. And please with the we always fare better early in the recruiting cycle. That right there discredits your entire post. That is fundamentally untrue.
What narrative?
Love to see some stats on the kind of recruits we get before and after October.
I was always under the impression from the experts on here that we always do better early in the recruiting cycle at NU.
That's been the "narrative" on this board forever.
Ok...let's just look at the 80's.Yes always...The recruiting rankings were basically the same as the final AP top 25.
And even back then Ohio St, Michigan and Penn St were pulling in classes better than Nebraska.
Our recruiting has stayed the same under Riley? It was floundering badly at the end of Pelini's era and is now ramping up in Riley's. The majority of Pelini's classes were failures.The numbers tell the story about how we have recruited. While our recruiting has stayed the same with Riley, some of the other Big Ten schools have recruited even better. We either need a coach who can recruit better than what we have seen recently or find a way to get more out of our players ala a Wisky or Okie State or TCU. Or preferably both.
Ok...let's just look at the 80's.
1. Nebraska was ranked in the AP top 25 every year in the 80's. MU and OSU were ranked 8 times. PSU just 6 times.
2. Nebraska was ranked in the top 10 seven times. MU six times. PSU 5 times. OSU just 2 times.
You say the recruiting rankings before 1990 were the same as the final AP top 25, yet you also declare that OSU MU, and Penn St. were still pulling in better classes than us. How can that be?
As with the other numbers in this thread, the numbers don't lie.
Look, if you want to look at the numbers and believe what we have seen is great recruiting, go for it.Our recruiting has stayed the same under Riley? It was floundering badly at the end of Pelini's era and is now ramping up in Riley's. The majority of Pelini's classes were failures.
Sorry, but recruiting is more nuanced than you would like to admit.Look, if you want to look at the numbers and believe what we have seen is great recruiting, go for it.
IF you re-rank our class due to misses you have to do the same for every single program. You can't say we were 42 without doing that. Quit your dishonest trolling please.
Sorry, but recruiting is more nuanced than you would like to admit.
Average star ranking goes to Riley.
Total quality contributors goes to Riley.
What matters to kids is the NFL. That definitely goes to Bo. Even if they aren't exactly pillars to society.
Very few of Bo's recruits made it into the Pros.What matters to kids is the NFL. That definitely goes to Bo. Even if they aren't exactly pillars to society.
Look, if you want to look at the numbers and believe what we have seen is great recruiting, go for it.
No the narrative is that Nebraska does best when we get the kids to visit and see a game. The previous staff rarely recruited in the summer, let alone had a bunch of verbally committed players. Then would bring in a bunch of plan B guys in January. Remember Els, its tough to get kids to come to Nebraska on their own dime. We have to wait until the season so we can pay for it.
You may be right. Riley may be able to identify diamonds in the rough better than Bo (or more importantly he needs to do it better than others he coaches against). But honestly it seems your argument is "Bo had a bunch of busts who aren't playing." Then you point out that Riley has a bunch of guys (some unexpected) who are playing early. Well, since someone has to play it makes sense these guys are stepping into the fray.Rivals numbers are a nice guide to go by. But clearly the current staff has found players that are undervalued and under-ranked better that the previous staff.
Not including kickers/punters/long snappers, here are the two star guys Riley has brought in:
2015: Reed and A. Davis - both have started games by their 3rd year.
2016: None
2017: Walker - TBD
Pelini-
2008: Wald (bust), Marlowe (contributor), Kreikemeier (bust), Ward (bust), Bell (bust)
2009: None
2010: Marsh (bust), J. Cotton (contributor), Evans (bust)
2011: Sutton (contributor)
2012: None
2013: None
2014: Cockrell (was a decent player), Irons (bust), Wills (bust), AJ Bush (bust), Tolbert (bust), K. Williams was unranked and from a prep school - count him however you see fit.
You may be right. Riley may be able to identify diamonds in the rough better than Bo (or more importantly he needs to do it better than others he coaches against). But honestly it seems your argument is "Bo had a bunch of busts who aren't playing." Then you point out that Riley has a bunch of guys (some unexpected) who are playing early. Well, since someone has to play it makes sense these guys are stepping into the fray.
It would be exciting if they were playing well. The reality is that it simply hasn't been very good thus far. Let's hope they will turn it around and we can declare these young guys as solid contributors to a great team.