Nebraska's roster Talent (graph) or: "At the Base of the Mountain"

[Making Chimichangas]

@IA State Husker

That a good graph. However, looking at that graph, there are some schools ahead of us which have as many, or more, losses as we do, so clearly talent alone is not the answer.

While talent wise we're certainly not at Alabama or Ohio State's level, I sincerely doubt we're as far behind as your graph implies.

Football is the ultimate team sport. And in this ultimate team sport, individual players heart, drive, and will to win determines how a team does. There are also a myriad of other factors:

• players staying healthy through a season
• academics staying on track
• coaching decisions, in week leading up to a game, and in game
• lucky versus unlucky bounces of the ball
• referee calls that go/don't go your team's way
• girlfriends and family situations which can affect a player's focus
• schedule, having say Iowa, Ohio State and Wisconsin in Lincoln versus the Huskers being on the road

And these are just other factors I can think off right off the top of my head.

My point here: Yes we certainly to need to recruit better, higher end talent. Everyone wants NU to recruit the best talent possible. But talent is simply one ingredient in the winning a championship recipe.

See: "'talent' is relative, subjective, and not easily defined".

"Tired topic with much debate" - Yes, Making Chimichangas, your point is valid. But you are trying to equate production and talent, and they are different.

247 published their thoughts on talent levels on each team. I think everyone is well aware that talent is an input to production, not the only input.

I am making no such equation.

I realize production and talent are different.

All the factors I listed go hand in hand. And while it may be obvious to you that all the factors I listed are needed, clearly the people who think getting elite talent alone will cure all is who I am talking to.

 

[Atbone95]

I'd like to see graphs like this for each of the last say 10 years and compare it with final season results. I would guess 9 out of 10 NC teams are in the elite talent category

I'll hit you in 10 minutes.
Update: The talent analysis from the OP only contains data for the last two years, so the data isn't readily available

That said, the last two national champions (Ohio St and Bama) are both in the elite category in their respective year

Looking at the programs that won titles in the past 10 years it's safe to assume they were either in the elite or great category the year they won.

Something I can give you... Average Recruiting Ranking of National Champion 4 years prior to national championship year:

2005 - Texas (8)

2006 - Florida (5)

2007 - LSU (7.5)

2008 - Florida (5.25)

2009 - Alabama (8.25)

2010 - Auburn (15.75)

2011 - Alabama (2.75)

2012 - Alabama (2.25)

2013 - Florida St. (5.75)

2014 - Ohio St. (4.25)

2015 - Alabama (1)

Clearly, talent is important. If you say "elite" is top 10 recruiting, only one anomaly (Auburn) in the last 10 years. And that was Cam Newton.

 

[LumberJackSker]

I'd like to see graphs like this for each of the last say 10 years and compare it with final season results. I would guess 9 out of 10 NC teams are in the elite talent category

I'll hit you in 10 minutes.
Update: The talent analysis from the OP only contains data for the last two years, so the data isn't readily available

That said, the last two national champions (Ohio St and Bama) are both in the elite category in their respective year

Looking at the programs that won titles in the past 10 years it's safe to assume they were either in the elite or great category the year they won.

Something I can give you... Average Recruiting Ranking of National Champion 4 years prior to national championship year:

2005 - Texas (8)

2006 - Florida (5)

2007 - LSU (7.5)

2008 - Florida (5.25)

2009 - Alabama (8.25)

2010 - Auburn (15.75)

2011 - Alabama (2.75)

2012 - Alabama (2.25)

2013 - Florida St. (5.75)

2014 - Ohio St. (4.25)

2015 - Alabama (1)

Clearly, talent is important. If you say "elite" is top 10 recruiting, only one anomaly (Auburn) in the last 10 years. And that was Cam Newton.

Nebraska has got some work to do

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

Thanks, Zoogs and Atbone! One thing to keep in mind is that I am not trying to further an agenda (like past coaches recruiting), just presenting 247's data graphically. *** I stretched it vertically in order to accentuate the differences, but I kept zero on the graph (graphs that don't show zero are trying to mislead you).

I knew the "talent vs coaching 'em up" debate would come up sooner or later, but that wasn't my intention with this thread. I just thought it was interesting to see it rather than read it.

I think our coaches can "climb the mountain" but it will take more than one recruiting cycle. Even though 247 doesn't go back to previous years with this ranking, I think I have seen other data to suggest that we have been right around this same ranking for quite a while. It's going to take effort to move above, IMO

*** edit - I was the one that added the "categories" so keep in mind that it is arbitrary, and my own interpretation of the data.

 

[Atbone95]

I'd like to see graphs like this for each of the last say 10 years and compare it with final season results. I would guess 9 out of 10 NC teams are in the elite talent category

I'll hit you in 10 minutes.
Update: The talent analysis from the OP only contains data for the last two years, so the data isn't readily available

That said, the last two national champions (Ohio St and Bama) are both in the elite category in their respective year

Looking at the programs that won titles in the past 10 years it's safe to assume they were either in the elite or great category the year they won.

Something I can give you... Average Recruiting Ranking of National Champion 4 years prior to national championship year:

2005 - Texas (8)

2006 - Florida (5)

2007 - LSU (7.5)

2008 - Florida (5.25)

2009 - Alabama (8.25)

2010 - Auburn (15.75)

2011 - Alabama (2.75)

2012 - Alabama (2.25)

2013 - Florida St. (5.75)

2014 - Ohio St. (4.25)

2015 - Alabama (1)

Clearly, talent is important. If you say "elite" is top 10 recruiting, only one anomaly (Auburn) in the last 10 years. And that was Cam Newton.

Nebraska has got some work to do

FWIW, Nebraska's average recruiting ranking in the 4 years prior to this season is 28.25. Woof.

 

[Crashman44b]

I'd like to see graphs like this for each of the last say 10 years and compare it with final season results. I would guess 9 out of 10 NC teams are in the elite talent category

I'll hit you in 10 minutes.
Update: The talent analysis from the OP only contains data for the last two years, so the data isn't readily available

That said, the last two national champions (Ohio St and Bama) are both in the elite category in their respective year

Looking at the programs that won titles in the past 10 years it's safe to assume they were either in the elite or great category the year they won.

Something I can give you... Average Recruiting Ranking of National Champion 4 years prior to national championship year:
2005 - Texas (8)

2006 - Florida (5)

2007 - LSU (7.5)

2008 - Florida (5.25)

2009 - Alabama (8.25)

2010 - Auburn (15.75)

2011 - Alabama (2.75)

2012 - Alabama (2.25)

2013 - Florida St. (5.75)

2014 - Ohio St. (4.25)

2015 - Alabama (1)

Clearly, talent is important. If you say "elite" is top 10 recruiting, only one anomaly (Auburn) in the last 10 years. And that was Cam Newton.

I have been saying this for years. It's going to take a great defense like the 2009 Huskers with a freak of a QB like Newton to get to the Mountain top. I'm not sure we can do it with Banker at the helm defensively. I'm ok with him right now due to the improvement this year's squad made.

I'm almost certain we can climb on graphs like these if we can keep the Williams boys around and HCMR doesn't get put on the hot seat. I don't think we'll do anything but trend up the next 2 months. Another boost would be to put on a good showing in the bowl game.

 

[skersfan]

I am pretty sure the only exception other than Auburn was Ohio State under Tressel. Almost all have been in the top ten rankings for 4-5 years prior. This is not new information. Switzer said it over and over, you have to have top level talent to win the NC and a lot of luck, well except for Bama. But when you have ten times as many as anyone else working on recruiting it becomes much easier. Money and bend rules.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Every ranked team will have a mix of Elite, Great, Good and Above-Average talent. I think the real difference is depth. The powerhouse teams can keep bringing in fresh legs and injury replacements where lesser teams -- like us -- get real thin, real quick.

 

[Red_Payne]

This seems pretty accurate to me.

I think were the talent is allocated can have a major impact on a team's success. Neb. seems to have a lot of their talent allocated to skill positions; Iowa is way behind in terms of overall talent, but they probably have the majority of their talent on the lines. Hopefully Riley can create a more balanced talent pool. That's just my opinion/observation, though.

 

[Saunders]

Fantastic thread. Nice job on the research IA State Husker!

 

[Making Chimichangas]

This seems pretty accurate to me.

I think were the talent is allocated can have a major impact on a team's success. Neb. seems to have a lot of their talent allocated to skill positions; Iowa is way behind in terms of overall talent, but they probably have the majority of their talent on the lines. Hopefully Riley can create a more balanced talent pool. That's just my opinion/observation, though.

Mike Riley has said on more than one occasion that great football teams are built from the inside out. That you start with great interior lines on both sides of the ball.

And we've seen this staff begin aggressively going after more of the top end O and D lineman (or guys they think are top end).

The biggest problem is, we're not in the SEC and we can't sign 35 players in each class. #SlightHyperbole

 

[husker98]

and plenty of those teams at the top of the mountain have, and will lose to teams at the bottom of it. It really is all meaningless

 

[grandpasknee]

IA

I know this is a tired topic with much debate. I know "talent" is relative, subjective and not easily defined. Its fun to try anyway.

247 has a ranking of roster talent that takes attrition into account. Many posters, including Mavric, have posted a link to this, but I'll do it again. It's the closest thing to accurate as I have seen.

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

I wanted to see the data in graphical form, so I entered it into Excel and graphed it:

Excellent post IA_Husker. The visual aspect is very helpful. It shows that talent is one of the key factors, but teams like Louisville and Notre Dame make it clear that great coaching and one or two "elite of the elite" players can make a team, while poor coaching can negate good talent. Obviously lots of things go into "success" but in the big picture...I'd take a boat load of talent over a little bit of talent.

 

[Mierin]

This thread is weird without cm telling us talent doesn't matter and we need to only recruit within 5 miles of Lincoln and use Navy or GT's offenses as a model.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

This thread is weird without cm telling us talent doesn't matter and we need to only recruit within 5 miles of Lincoln and use Navy or GT's offenses as a model.

Throw some shade at Bo and I'm sure he'll show up. It's like putting up the bat signal.