Sipple: Osborne weighs in on Husker recruiting

[Nexus]

FWIW, Bo's highest ranked recruiting class since he's been here is 2011.

Rivals = 15th

24/7 = 17th

Scout = 19th

ESPN = 17th

This just in: Tom Osborne tends to be a bit understated.

"Often times, people refer to our teams in the 1990s as being pretty good teams," the legendary former Nebraska coach said last week.

Yeah, pretty decent.

Osborne isn't inclined toward hyperbole. So you can imagine how he feels about recruiting rankings. Hyperbole is critical to the very essence of recruiting rankings.

Osborne regards the rankings with a large grain of salt. We knew that. Still, it took me somewhat by surprise when he called in response to my column in which Big Ten Network analyst Gerry DiNardo said Big Ten coaches need to take recruiting rankings more seriously — like SEC coaches do.

I regarded Osborne's phone call as his way of defending his head coach. Nothing wrong with that.

Nebraska fifth-year coach Bo Pelini hasn't generated a top-10 class. The Huskers' current class is ranked 27th by Scout.com and 40th by Rivals.com. Osborne noted that during the 1990s, most of the Huskers' recruiting classes were ranked in the 15-to-30 range.

Continue Reading

 

[Landlord]

I don't know what to make of the currently in-progress class, and admittedly haven't been following much - however, if Bo can bring in classes like 2011 and 2012 every year, I think our team will be just fine and he isn't going anywhere.

 

[Count 'Bility]

You do have to have talent. You cant expect to do it with walk-on caliber at most positions (see Frank Solich era). But yes, Bill Snyder and Kansas St right now are a perfect example that recruting rankings are not life or death, even though Snyder is a proven anomoly.

 

[VectorVictor]

You do have to have talent. You cant expect to do it with walk-on caliber at most positions (see Frank Solich era). But yes, Bill Snyder and Kansas St right now are a perfect example that recruting rankings are not life or death, even though Snyder is a proven anomoly.

Right...and those 'anomalies' are getting harder and harder to come by, as the recruiting services have stepped up their game in the past decade or two since Dr. Tom coached.

Not saying the recruiting services are infallible--far from it. But if they weren't right more often than they were wrong, they'd be out of a job.

 

[NUance]

Great photo of T.O. in that Sipple article. :thumbs :

 

[BigRedBuster]

Recruiting sources provide entertainment. That is it. As long as people subscribe to their services and get all worked up about recruits that may or may not come to their school, they will keep raking in the money.

In the grand scheme of things, they have very mixed success in picking who is going to be good or not.

I guess probably in a macro sense, they do a decent job. In general, I'm sure their 4-5 star guys do better than their 2-3 star guys.

The problem comes down to when you try to paint a certain player into a corner based on these rankings. There is a very very long list of 5 star guys who couldn't do a thing in college and a very very long list of 3 star guys who turned out to be very good.

There is absolutely no way these services can analyze ever single player in the US fairly. A kid like Jared Crick in the middle of Texas or Florida is probably going to be at least a 4 star kid. In the middle of Nebraska that same kid is only a 3 star because the perception is that he hasn't played against anyone good. Then, if a particular player all of a sudden gets offers from Texas, USC and Alabama...guess what happens to his rankings. The kid hasn't changed but the perception has.

Bottom line is it's for entertainment purposes only. Decisions should not be made on coaches jobs..etc. based on recruiting service rankings.

 

[BartonHusker]

That pic is really cool!

 

[Creighton Duke]

Recruiting sources provide entertainment. That is it. As long as people subscribe to their services and get all worked up about recruits that may or may not come to their school, they will keep raking in the money.

In the grand scheme of things, they have very mixed success in picking who is going to be good or not.

I guess probably in a macro sense, they do a decent job. In general, I'm sure their 4-5 star guys do better than their 2-3 star guys.

The problem comes down to when you try to paint a certain player into a corner based on these rankings. There is a very very long list of 5 star guys who couldn't do a thing in college and a very very long list of 3 star guys who turned out to be very good.

There is absolutely no way these services can analyze ever single player in the US fairly. A kid like Jared Crick in the middle of Texas or Florida is probably going to be at least a 4 star kid. In the middle of Nebraska that same kid is only a 3 star because the perception is that he hasn't played against anyone good. Then, if a particular player all of a sudden gets offers from Texas, USC and Alabama...guess what happens to his rankings. The kid hasn't changed but the perception has.

Bottom line is it's for entertainment purposes only. Decisions should not be made on coaches jobs..etc. based on recruiting service rankings.

This is where you start to see the correlation between recruiting rankings and on-field success.

2006 January 8, 2007 2 Florida 41 1 Ohio State 14 BCS National Championship 2007 January 7, 2008 2 LSU 38 1 Ohio State 24 BCS National Championship 2008 January 8, 2009 1 Florida 24 2 Oklahoma 14 BCS National Championship 2009 January 7, 2010 1 Alabama 37 2 Texas 21 BCS National Championship 2010 January 10, 2011 1 Auburn 22 2 Oregon 19 BCS National Championship 2011 January 9, 2012 2 Alabama 21 1 LSU 0 BCS National Championship

 

[Landlord]

Recruiting sources provide entertainment. That is it. As long as people subscribe to their services and get all worked up about recruits that may or may not come to their school, they will keep raking in the money.

In the grand scheme of things, they have very mixed success in picking who is going to be good or not.

I guess probably in a macro sense, they do a decent job. In general, I'm sure their 4-5 star guys do better than their 2-3 star guys.

The problem comes down to when you try to paint a certain player into a corner based on these rankings. There is a very very long list of 5 star guys who couldn't do a thing in college and a very very long list of 3 star guys who turned out to be very good.

There is absolutely no way these services can analyze ever single player in the US fairly. A kid like Jared Crick in the middle of Texas or Florida is probably going to be at least a 4 star kid. In the middle of Nebraska that same kid is only a 3 star because the perception is that he hasn't played against anyone good. Then, if a particular player all of a sudden gets offers from Texas, USC and Alabama...guess what happens to his rankings. The kid hasn't changed but the perception has.

Bottom line is it's for entertainment purposes only. Decisions should not be made on coaches jobs..etc. based on recruiting service rankings.

This is where you start to see the correlation between recruiting rankings and on-field success.

2006 January 8, 2007 2 Florida 41 1 Ohio State 14 BCS National Championship 2007 January 7, 2008 2 LSU 38 1 Ohio State 24 BCS National Championship 2008 January 8, 2009 1 Florida 24 2 Oklahoma 14 BCS National Championship 2009 January 7, 2010 1 Alabama 37 2 Texas 21 BCS National Championship 2010 January 10, 2011 1 Auburn 22 2 Oregon 19 BCS National Championship 2011 January 9, 2012 2 Alabama 21 1 LSU 0 BCS National Championship

 

[NUinID]

Recruiting sources provide entertainment. That is it. As long as people subscribe to their services and get all worked up about recruits that may or may not come to their school, they will keep raking in the money.

In the grand scheme of things, they have very mixed success in picking who is going to be good or not.

I guess probably in a macro sense, they do a decent job. In general, I'm sure their 4-5 star guys do better than their 2-3 star guys.

The problem comes down to when you try to paint a certain player into a corner based on these rankings. There is a very very long list of 5 star guys who couldn't do a thing in college and a very very long list of 3 star guys who turned out to be very good.

There is absolutely no way these services can analyze ever single player in the US fairly. A kid like Jared Crick in the middle of Texas or Florida is probably going to be at least a 4 star kid. In the middle of Nebraska that same kid is only a 3 star because the perception is that he hasn't played against anyone good. Then, if a particular player all of a sudden gets offers from Texas, USC and Alabama...guess what happens to his rankings. The kid hasn't changed but the perception has.

Bottom line is it's for entertainment purposes only. Decisions should not be made on coaches jobs..etc. based on recruiting service rankings.

This is where you start to see the correlation between recruiting rankings and on-field success.

2006 January 8, 2007 2 Florida 41 1 Ohio State 14 BCS National Championship 2007 January 7, 2008 2 LSU 38 1 Ohio State 24 BCS National Championship 2008 January 8, 2009 1 Florida 24 2 Oklahoma 14 BCS National Championship 2009 January 7, 2010 1 Alabama 37 2 Texas 21 BCS National Championship 2010 January 10, 2011 1 Auburn 22 2 Oregon 19 BCS National Championship 2011 January 9, 2012 2 Alabama 21 1 LSU 0 BCS National Championship

I think the truth lies somewear in the middle of what both of you think. Since TO retired the recruiting services have become more accurate in their assessment of players, but they still miss on quite a few guys. Case in point, our recruit from SD this year, his name slips my mide. He would most likely be a 4* in Texas. Nebraska has always lived off of the players that aren't as highly recruited or not at all. Aaron Taylor or even Will Shields were not 5* guys they were too short to get that kind of look, but in the right system they were AA and outland trophy winners, and won will be in the NFL hall of fame.

They have taken guys that are walk-ons and done great things. Another example is Long at guard. The guy never played a down of O-line in HS. Great athlete, smart, walks on at NU at 6'4" 245 or so and 50lbs later is going to be a 1st team Big 10 player this year.

There are tons of players like that all over the state of Nebraska and in the small towns all over the midwest. The best athlete on the team plays RB or QB or what ever in HS, but maybe he isn't that at the D1 level. Wants to keep playing moves to the O-line, WR, TE maybe a D-Tackle and can contribute. Nebraska has done that for years and they need to keep getting 3-4 kids every year that contribute it helps make there team better.

I mean whats up with Andy Jadavey. The kid is great, walks on and 4 months later is the starting FB.

 

[junior4949]

It was a pretty good article, and I for the most part agree with TO. However, this little nugget kind of jumped out at me: "The main thing is, you have to take guys who fit your system and who you think have good character. Then you look at how those guys mesh and how they develop — that's really a big deal."

I agree with finding those that fit the system, but I take his comment about recruiting those with good character with a grain of salt. LP was trouble long before he ever stepped foot in Lincoln, NE. There were others that had trouble written all over them as well before ever getting to Lincoln. However, TO for the most part did an outstanding job of meshing some of those with questionable character with those with outstanding character. Even though LP and a few others jump out, there were several other football players brought into the system that could have been big trouble for the program. Yet, TO and his staff did a pretty good job of keeping them under control. TO was the master of meshing. He could scatter a few walk-ons with highly touted recruits and field a pretty good football team.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I have always said that there isn't a genetic boundary on the Mason Dixon Line that prevents good players from growing up in the north. But...

a) They haven't been developed in HS.

b) Recruiting services discount players from the north and boost players in places like Florida and Texas.

c) Some coaches have become convinced that there isn't any talent here. Calliclown was bad about this.

The difference is that places like Florida and Texas can take a kid who has been developed in HS and play him right away. A kid from western Nebraska may need to be in the program for a couple years to get to the point in development that the kid from Allen Texas is at coming out of HS.

This is why our walkon program is so important.

 

[junior4949]

I think the biggest reason for this is the fact that down there they have the weather where they can play football almost year round. The nothern states do not have this luxury.

 

[Creighton Duke]

Recruiting sources provide entertainment. That is it. As long as people subscribe to their services and get all worked up about recruits that may or may not come to their school, they will keep raking in the money.

In the grand scheme of things, they have very mixed success in picking who is going to be good or not.

I guess probably in a macro sense, they do a decent job. In general, I'm sure their 4-5 star guys do better than their 2-3 star guys.

The problem comes down to when you try to paint a certain player into a corner based on these rankings. There is a very very long list of 5 star guys who couldn't do a thing in college and a very very long list of 3 star guys who turned out to be very good.

There is absolutely no way these services can analyze ever single player in the US fairly. A kid like Jared Crick in the middle of Texas or Florida is probably going to be at least a 4 star kid. In the middle of Nebraska that same kid is only a 3 star because the perception is that he hasn't played against anyone good. Then, if a particular player all of a sudden gets offers from Texas, USC and Alabama...guess what happens to his rankings. The kid hasn't changed but the perception has.

Bottom line is it's for entertainment purposes only. Decisions should not be made on coaches jobs..etc. based on recruiting service rankings.

This is where you start to see the correlation between recruiting rankings and on-field success.

2006 January 8, 2007 2 Florida 41 1 Ohio State 14 BCS National Championship 2007 January 7, 2008 2 LSU 38 1 Ohio State 24 BCS National Championship 2008 January 8, 2009 1 Florida 24 2 Oklahoma 14 BCS National Championship 2009 January 7, 2010 1 Alabama 37 2 Texas 21 BCS National Championship 2010 January 10, 2011 1 Auburn 22 2 Oregon 19 BCS National Championship 2011 January 9, 2012 2 Alabama 21 1 LSU 0 BCS National Championship

I think the truth lies somewear in the middle of what both of you think. Since TO retired the recruiting services have become more accurate in their assessment of players, but they still miss on quite a few guys. Case in point, our recruit from SD this year, his name slips my mide. He would most likely be a 4* in Texas. Nebraska has always lived off of the players that aren't as highly recruited or not at all. Aaron Taylor or even Will Shields were not 5* guys they were too short to get that kind of look, but in the right system they were AA and outland trophy winners, and won will be in the NFL hall of fame.

They have taken guys that are walk-ons and done great things. Another example is Long at guard. The guy never played a down of O-line in HS. Great athlete, smart, walks on at NU at 6'4" 245 or so and 50lbs later is going to be a 1st team Big 10 player this year.

There are tons of players like that all over the state of Nebraska and in the small towns all over the midwest. The best athlete on the team plays RB or QB or what ever in HS, but maybe he isn't that at the D1 level. Wants to keep playing moves to the O-line, WR, TE maybe a D-Tackle and can contribute. Nebraska has done that for years and they need to keep getting 3-4 kids every year that contribute it helps make there team better.

I mean whats up with Andy Jadavey. The kid is great, walks on and 4 months later is the starting FB.

I agree with you that the exposure isn't there like it is in the Speed States, but it's hard to get an assessment on a kid who is playing against very weak competition. Nebraska has done a great job of finding diamonds in the rough in this regard. However, at the end of the day, I think anyone would rather have a kid who is dominating top competition; this is more of an indicator of a "sure thing" (or as close as something can be to one). These are the guys that SEC schools not only get, but they get in droves (look at the number of commits for the top SEC schools up to this point and look at the total number of commits for the Huskers at this point and you'll see what I mean).

The piece of Jankovich is misleading. Don't get me wrong, as a former HS fullback, I thoroughly enjoyed watching him, especially in the Wisconsin game, blowing guys as a lead blocker, but his starting I think is more attributed to the VERY inept play of Zimmerer and Marrow than any other factor.