Sipple: Osborne weighs in on Husker recruiting

I believe its a combination of both recruits and coaches. You need to have good coaches and staff to coach, lead, and discipline good recruits in order to have a successful program. Good coaches and bad recruits don't lead to a successful program, nor does bad coaches and good recruits.

You can point to several teams throughout the past and now that have had great coaches, but did have the talented players like the better teams. Same goes for talented players going to a program with bad coaching. Charlie Weis, Rich Rodriguez, Bill Callahan. Bad coaches with great talent coming in and yet they lost over and over again until they were fired.

So how good your coaching staff does their job is just as important as how good the athletes are that coming to the program.

 
HuskerNationNick said:
Creighton Duke said:
HuskerNationNick said:
COACHING comes down to more than ONE coach dude! Those guys had VERY smart coordinators and staff under them, as Bo had to start fresh! Its all off of Coaching! Look at Michigan for example!!! #4 recruiting class last year, where are they? How about Auburn? Virginia Tech? Vanderbilt? Washington? North Carolina? All schools that "ranked" higher in recruiting than us, and we have a more talented group than every one of them. Right now, those coaches you named are far more experienced at their positions than Bo, but Bo has been coming along VERY well.
Click to expand...
Michigan - Won a BCS bowl last year; could win the Legends Division of Big 10

Auburn - two years removed from nat'l champ; play in the hardest division of the hardest conference in America

VT - one year removed from ACC Championship game appearance; 3 conference titles in 4 years before that (and if you honestly believe that Beamer and his staff aren't good at COACHING, well...)

Vandy - About to become bowl eligible in consecutive years for the first time since 22-23 when they were the Southern Conference champs; play in the hardest conference; academic standards

So you admit they are better COACHES or do they get better recruits?
Click to expand...
Last year's recruiting class would be playing this year LOL, and they are not any better than they were the year before.

Vandy, ohhhhhhh they are 4-4 (2-3 SEC) that is enough said there.

Your missing the HUGE point! JUST BECAUSE YOU GET 4-5* KIDS DOESN'T MEAN YOUR GOING TO BE GREAT!!! You can turn a "2*" kid into a 5* athlete with the right coaching, and the right kid with the right mental attitude and will. Starts with coaching, ends with coaching. It doesn't take 4-5* recruits to win Championships, it takes the right amount of coaching.
Click to expand...
Vandy would compete in this year's Big 10.

No, I think you're (try to work on this) missing the point. The relationship works like this:

great coaching, great 4-5*talent = championships at regular intervals (i.e. Bama, LSU, Pete Carroll USC)

buffoon coaching, great 4-5*talent = championships every so often (i.e. Auburn with Chizik)

great coaching, mediocre 2-3*talent = championships once every 20 years if ever (i.e.Pat Fitzgerald, Dan Mullen (medicore talent compared to conference))

buffoon coaching, mediocre 2-3* talent = nothing (i.e. most of college football)

See, talent wins championships a lot. Great coaching wins championships a lot when combined with the great talent; without great talent, great coaching is wasted.

 
great coaching, mediocre 2-3*talent = championships once every 20 years if ever (i.e.Pat Fitzgerald, Dan Mullen (medicore talent compared to conference))

The only problem I have with that, is how on the hell did TO win his 3 National Titles in a 4 year span? You act like we recruited all 5 star athletes.

I have never stated that those kids aren't good, and don't help make a team better. I simply stated it doesn't matter what kids you get, it all lands on coaching. A good coach, can turn a 2* kid into a stud. Its been proven, and still gets proven to this day. To base a coaches performance off the "Top 25 Recruiting Class" is just ridiculous. It starts with coaching, and ends with coaching, as I have stated a million times before.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know Ameer Abdullah was a 3 star back, we all know he is not a 3 star back, the kid looked like a solid 4 star back when he took the field last year.

Kenny Bell was a 3 star athlete, He ranks near the top as one of the best receivers in the Big Ten.

 
Fuzzy said:
You know Ameer Abdullah was a 3 star back, we all know he is not a 3 star back, the kid looked like a solid 4 star back when he took the field last year.

Kenny Bell was a 3 star athlete, He ranks near the top as one of the best receivers in the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

3* athletes have just as much of an impact as these "4*-5*" athletes. Johnny Stanton and Tommy Armstrong both 3* kids as well. Stars are a joke.

Fuzzy, that is exactly what I have been trying to explain this whole time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskerNationNick said:
great coaching, mediocre 2-3*talent = championships once every 20 years if ever (i.e.Pat Fitzgerald, Dan Mullen (medicore talent compared to conference))

The only problem I have with that, is how on the hell did TO win his 3 National Titles in a 4 year span? You act like we recruited all 5 star athletes.

I have never stated that those kids aren't good, and don't help make a team better. I simply stated it doesn't matter what kids you get, it all lands on coaching. A good coach, can turn a 2* kid into a stud. Its been proven, and still gets proven to this day. To base a coaches performance off the "Top 25 Recruiting Class" is just ridiculous. It starts with coaching, and ends with coaching, as I have stated a million times before.
Click to expand...
Ok, you're talking about the greatest CFB of all time who DID have some elite talent (probably better, adjusted for inflation than we do now) during a period where recruiting was a little more volatile i.e. not the same teams every year getting the best talent/talent being spread around. I mean, it was a completely different landscape back then. Go back another 20 years and you'll find schools that didn't recruit minority players. Again, a different landscape.

Deferring to coaching, another reason why that late Osborne-era staff is tough to compare to is because of the absurd amount of total years that that staff had collectively on the Nebraska staff. I mean, it was approaching 200 years if I remember correctly. Staffs stayed together longer back then, but that was an anomally even for the time...so yeah, I agree that coaching matters, but the gold standard that you are comparing too is something that was a freak occurance and that I can confidently say will never come around again.

 
Fuzzy said:
You know Ameer Abdullah was a 3 star back, we all know he is not a 3 star back, the kid looked like a solid 4 star back when he took the field last year.

Kenny Bell was a 3 star athlete, He ranks near the top as one of the best receivers in the Big Ten.
Click to expand...
I can pick out 3 star athletes on an SEC, Texas, or USC roster who have contributed in a much greater manner than their recruiting hype dictated. Picking out a nice success story here and there doesn't equate to championships.

 
LumberJackSker said:
so you're telling me Osborne had some top ten classes and ranking between 15-30 in the recruiting ranking? i thought all the rosters from the 1990's were made up of walk-ons and 1 star kids, coaching is the most important thing but you got to get some elite kids as well
Click to expand...
The difference being we were Bama' dominant then with classes ranked in the 15-30 while Bama' is Bama' dominant with classes ranked 1-5. We gotta get "some" elite kids. We don't have to have the entire recruiting class made up of elite players. This is what TO did was get "some". Bo has been getting "some". If our wins and losses come down to whether we have consecutive top ten recruiting classes or not, fans are more than likely going to be awfully disappointed.

 
I've found this article to be a great insight on recruiting rankings. Are they the end all, be all? Certainly not, but they do give you an idea of what a player is capable of.

http://sports.yahoo....-214251813.html

Pay particular attention to this figure:

130-All-Americans-Graph-2.jpg


Recruiting rankings aren't about every player being correctly slotted as a star. But if you look at the rankings, the odds of a 5 star player becoming an All-American (1 in 12) is substantially higher than that of a 3 star player (1 in 133). This is what is important about recruiting rankings.

Of course you can find a 2 star guy that works his way to an All-American team. But those are fewer and farther between than a 5 star guy who does it.

So when you look at a recruiting class with three 4 star players and twelve 3 star players, you might have an All-American player in your class... but the odds are against it.

EDIT: I don't know why the figure isn't showing up, it does when I'm 'editing' the post...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That picture posted is in my top 10 TO pics of all time. The other ones I like are with Switzer or the one where TO is looking a little excited about a play that is taking place in front of him. He has his head phones on and about to spit his gum out of his mouth.

 


6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

http://www.rivals.com/aboutrankings.asp?Sport=1

5.7 are what Abdullah, Bell, and Martinez, (Armstrong, Gerry, Stanton) were rated coming out of High School. That is the highest ranking for a 3 Star prospect. Top 750 kids coming out of High School in the whole nation. I don’t understand why people think a kid rated as a Top 3 Star prospect means that Rivals missed on them. So far I would say they are right on the money. All three of those guys are All Conference worthy but not All American worthy.

 
Internet Smartguy said:
6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

http://www.rivals.co...ngs.asp?Sport=1

5.7 are what Abdullah, Bell, and Martinez, (Armstrong, Gerry, Stanton) were rated coming out of High School. That is the highest ranking for a 3 Star prospect. Top 750 kids coming out of High School in the whole nation. I don’t understand why people think a kid rated as a Top 3 Star prospect means that Rivals missed on them. So far I would say they are right on the money. All three of those guys are All Conference worthy but not All American worthy.
Click to expand...
The same reason everyone seems to think three-star players aren't worth recruiting and the coaches aren't doing their job unless our classes are full of 4* and 5* players.

 
Back
Top