The Importance of Winning the Recruiting Battle

Washusker

Washusker

Starter
Interesting article from Dennis Dodd over at CBS Sportsline.com

He did an informal look at the top schools for recruiting over the past five years.

The top three:

USC

LSU

Florida

Each has won a national title during that time.

The rest of the top-ten schools are regular fixtures in the top-10 of the AP and coaches' polls - and regularly frequent BCS games.

Can a team have a great year without having great recruiting? Yes. But sustained excellence demands excellent recruiting.

We still have a ways to go...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sure it is a toss up, to some degree, but the proof is out there, with few exceptions, you got to be in the top 10 at least to have a legitimate shot every year. without great recruits you really don't have a chance and your program will never reach an enviable level.

 
Recruiting is important, but it is what kindof kid you get that matters..... I am sure to bet that Boise State and Rutgers didn't have many top #20 classes in the past 5 years..... a bunch of 3 * guys who work their asses off and play as a unit....

Rankings are crap and most people know it.....rankings are for guys like us and media to talk about during the dead period before spring ball.

 
I tend to agree with Washusker on this one. If you are consistantly bringing in players that are bigger, faster, stronger and more talented than the other guys then you will tend to dominate the other teams. That is clearly visible with USC, LSU and Florida.

 
Absolutely....bigger , faster, and stronger wins most of the time....no questions or arguements from me....

I am just saying that "rankings" are crap, and also a "crap-shoot"..... no telling how many 5 * guys will flop and how many 3* guys will work their butts off and be all-american..... 5* guys seem to think they don't have to work as hard.....

Just saying that rankings are based on opinions ........ and we all have them......

 
But Dodd's article gives a good amount of credence to those "opinions" from Rivals and Scout.

Like it or not, those services are pretty good evaluators of talent, and their ratings systems do correlate to success on the football.

Are they fool-proof? No. Do teams have great years without highly-rated recruits? Yes.

But when all is said and done, I'd rather have a bunch of four- and five-star players rather than "sleepers."

 
I think the key word is "consistant" good recruiting. One year alone may not be a good indicator of success but if a team consistantly has top recruiting classes it will start to show during the season. USC and the Florida schools have some real advantages besides skilled recruiters.

 
Washusker said:
But when all is said and done, I'd rather have a bunch of four- and five-star players rather than "sleepers."
Click to expand...
Thats it. You cannot make a living on sleepers. When all is said and done, if you can maintain an average of say about 10 over a four year period, you will not run into many, if any teams you cannot deal with talent wise. I'd mostly like to see NU get its star average up a bit. I'd prefer to see it average around 3.50 to 3.60 over a four year period.

 
Husker In Oklahoma said:
Washusker said:
But when all is said and done, I'd rather have a bunch of four- and five-star players rather than "sleepers."
Click to expand...
Thats it. You cannot make a living on sleepers. When all is said and done, if you can maintain an average of say about 10 over a four year period, you will not run into many, if any teams you cannot deal with talent wise. I'd mostly like to see NU get its star average up a bit. I'd prefer to see it average around 3.50 to 3.60 over a four year period.
Click to expand...

Does someone know our scores and average over the last 3 years?

 
When I see stars given to players, I think they are just a percentage given to the players about the chance to succeed in the college game. I think of it a lot like percentages of making a basket. If you were to shoot ten shots from the block, you would more than likely make 90% (five star). If I was to back up and shoot 10 footers, my percentage may fall back to 40-50% (four star). If I was to move out to the three point line I could make 30% (three star). But if I was to move out to half court my percentage would drop to 5% (two star). Obviously, there is a better chance of finding a great player in the five star ranks but that does not mean that there are not going to be great players in the four, three or even two star ranks either, just that the percentage of finding one goes way down as we drop stars.

 
There was a reference to a player (not recruited by NU) who was a two-star player. All the sudden USC recruited him and he bacame a three-star player. These national recruiting services are so bogus. Half the players these teams signed yesterday will never see the field. Recruiting classes should not be graded until 2 yrs from LOI day.

Look at Notre Dame. They always had great recruiting classes, but what kills them when they play every team other than the service academies? Speed. Speed is the number one thing you can't coach.

 
recruiting is way over the top...the whole idea of it would be different if rivals or scout didnt exist...the most important thing to remeber with this year's class is it addresses the open defensive position, and there is some good talent at the defensive back position. If the blackshirts are able to replace a whole line and the secondary improves then there is no need to worry what recruiting ranking we get. there are just developed by some 35 year old fat guys who have never been smacked in the mouth chuckleshuffle

 
HANC said:
Absolutely....bigger , faster, and stronger wins most of the time....no questions or arguements from me....

I am just saying that "rankings" are crap, and also a "crap-shoot"..... no telling how many 5 * guys will flop and how many 3* guys will work their butts off and be all-american..... 5* guys seem to think they don't have to work as hard.....

Just saying that rankings are based on opinions ........ and we all have them......
Click to expand...
I did a breakdown of Boise St. recruiting over the last 4 or five years and they average around 60-70th. They barely recruited any 3*. It was mostly 2* with some unranked players thrown in there. Zabransky their starting qb was unranked. It just goes to show that good coaching and player development can make an impact also.

 
NU fan in Denver said:
HANC said:
Absolutely....bigger , faster, and stronger wins most of the time....no questions or arguements from me....

I am just saying that "rankings" are crap, and also a "crap-shoot"..... no telling how many 5 * guys will flop and how many 3* guys will work their butts off and be all-american..... 5* guys seem to think they don't have to work as hard.....

Just saying that rankings are based on opinions ........ and we all have them......
Click to expand...
I did a breakdown of Boise St. recruiting over the last 4 or five years and they average around 60-70th. They barely recruited any 3*. It was mostly 2* with some unranked players thrown in there. Zabransky their starting qb was unranked. It just goes to show that good coaching and player development can make an impact also.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - but don't forget: If Boise played in a BCS conference, they would not have made a BCS bowl.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top