Hard Facts and Tough Questions

A

AndyDufresne

New member
The last 6 national champions and the Rivals team ranking of the five classes that made up their roster for that year are as follows:

2004 - USC (16, 10, 13, 3, 1)

2005 - Texas (6, 1, 15, 10, 20)

2006 - Florida (20, 2, 7, 15, 2)

2007 - LSU (1, 2, 22, 7, 4)

2008 - Florida (7, 15, 2, 1, 3)

2009 - Alabama (18, 11, 10, 1, 1)

The number of Rivals top 100 players on each team's roster during the championship year are as follows:

2004 - USC - 27

2005 - Texas - 25

2006 - Florida - 25

2007 - LSU - 30

2008 - LSU - 30

2009 - Alabama - 20

Each team that has won a championship in the last 6 years has had at least 2 top 6 recruiting classes in the 5 years prior to the championship Each team also had a minimum of 20 top 100 players on their roster. For comparison, our class rankings for this year's team are 20, 13, 30, 28, and 22. We have 3 Rivals top 100 players on our roster (assuming Heard makes it).

So if national championships are the goal, what do you believe that we can do to compete? Do you believe that it is possible for us to recruit like the above teams? Do you think our coaches can identify underrated talent better than other staffs? Do you believe that our player development and coaching are better than other staffs? Perhaps you believe that national championships are but a pipe dream in today's college football environment and we should set our sights a bit lower?

There are precedents of teams winning national championships with lesser talent. OU's last national championship (and only under Stoops) had classes whose average rank was somewhere in the mid to late 20's. Nebraska's incredible run in the late 90's was led by classes that averaged in the mid to late teens. Of course, that was before the age of the internet and the explosion in popularity of Rivals. It is hard to argue that Rivals doesn't do a much better job today than 10 or 15 years ago.

I will be interested to hear your opinions.

 
Some of this has to do with the instability of the coaching ranks. Coach turnover has reached epidemic proportions, with few coaches lasting ten years anymore. In an environment like that, raw talent takes over.

The simplest way to overcome these recruiting ranks is to have established programs with established coaching staffs who can train guys in-system for more than one recruiting cycle. When you have lesser talent coming in you want to redshirt them, get them in the weight room and into your culture, so that when they're ready to see the field as Juniors & Seniors, they're spitting nails and tough as rain.

While these numbers seem to point to the importance of recruiting being paramount, I see them as also pointing to the lack of longevity in NCAA coaches.

 
knapplc said:
Some of this has to do with the instability of the coaching ranks. Coach turnover has reached epidemic proportions, with few coaches lasting ten years anymore. In an environment like that, raw talent takes over.

The simplest way to overcome these recruiting ranks is to have established programs with established coaching staffs who can train guys in-system for more than one recruiting cycle. When you have lesser talent coming in you want to redshirt them, get them in the weight room and into your culture, so that when they're ready to see the field as Juniors & Seniors, they're spitting nails and tough as rain.

While these numbers seem to point to the importance of recruiting being paramount, I see them as also pointing to the lack of longevity in NCAA coaches.
Click to expand...
I think we found out who Tuff tiger is now. <_<

 
[quote name='AndyDufresne' date='27 May 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1274987095'

There are precedents of teams winning national championships with lesser talent. OU's last national championship (and only under Stoops) had classes whose average rank was somewhere in the mid to late 20's. Nebraska's incredible run in the late 90's was led by classes that averaged in the mid to late teens. Of course, that was before the age of the internet and the explosion in popularity of Rivals. It is hard to argue that Rivals doesn't do a much better job today than 10 or 15 years ago.

I will be interested to hear your opinions.

Internet has made everybody an expert in recruiting just read the bogs. Your list does not cover a 3 star being recruited by NU and n after his commit to USC he moves to a four or five star moves to a 4 and off the 100 when he picks his school close to home. Just look at Moore this year a five until he picks NU. I believe in the stars but I also believe some coaches have an eye for talent most experts don't have. I enjoyed the read

 
This is an interesting argument, I actually wrote a piece about it on my blog. My argument though, is teams like Boise State and TCU. I'm not exactly sure of the numbers, but Boise hasn't had a recruiting class in the top 60 since rivals started, and Utah hasn't had a class in the top 50. Yet they have 4 BCS victories between them in the last 5 years. Sure those aren't nationals titles, but they're damn close. I think if Nebraska can get the coaching like you see at TCU and Boise with top 15-25 recruiting classes, we could break that trend.

 
GMoose said:
This is an interesting argument, I actually wrote a piece about it on my blog. My argument though, is teams like Boise State and TCU. I'm not exactly sure of the numbers, but Boise hasn't had a recruiting class in the top 60 since rivals started, and Utah hasn't had a class in the top 50. Yet they have 4 BCS victories between them in the last 5 years. Sure those aren't nationals titles, but they're damn close. I think if Nebraska can get the coaching like you see at TCU and Boise with top 15-25 recruiting classes, we could break that trend.
Click to expand...
I agree to some extent.

However, the one area where TCU/Boise State/Utah unarguably fall short is in quality depth. Luckily, they play in conferences where they only play 2-3 tough games per year and therefore have a much easier potential road to BCS bowls. Also, the team is probably less banged up from their road to that bowl game than their BCS opponents.

To think about it another way: Put Boise State talent and coaching at KU. Would they be in a BCS bowl in the last five years? I don't think they would.

 
carlfense said:
GMoose said:
This is an interesting argument, I actually wrote a piece about it on my blog. My argument though, is teams like Boise State and TCU. I'm not exactly sure of the numbers, but Boise hasn't had a recruiting class in the top 60 since rivals started, and Utah hasn't had a class in the top 50. Yet they have 4 BCS victories between them in the last 5 years. Sure those aren't nationals titles, but they're damn close. I think if Nebraska can get the coaching like you see at TCU and Boise with top 15-25 recruiting classes, we could break that trend.
Click to expand...
I agree to some extent.

However, the one area where TCU/Boise State/Utah unarguably fall short is in quality depth. Luckily, they play in conferences where they only play 2-3 tough games per year and therefore have a much easier potential road to BCS bowls. Also, the team is probably less banged up from their road to that bowl game than their BCS opponents.

To think about it another way: Put Boise State talent and coaching at KU. Would they be in a BCS bowl in the last five years? I don't think they would.
Click to expand...
My point exactly! The coaches at these schools may not even be the best, but they know how to play their conferences, and they play to their strengths better than anyone. Which is what NU needs to do.

 
REDSTEEL said:
knapplc said:
Some of this has to do with the instability of the coaching ranks. Coach turnover has reached epidemic proportions, with few coaches lasting ten years anymore. In an environment like that, raw talent takes over.

The simplest way to overcome these recruiting ranks is to have established programs with established coaching staffs who can train guys in-system for more than one recruiting cycle. When you have lesser talent coming in you want to redshirt them, get them in the weight room and into your culture, so that when they're ready to see the field as Juniors & Seniors, they're spitting nails and tough as rain.

While these numbers seem to point to the importance of recruiting being paramount, I see them as also pointing to the lack of longevity in NCAA coaches.
Click to expand...
I think we found out who Tuff tiger is now. <_<
Click to expand...
Hah. You give me too much credit. No way am I that kind of mad genius.

 
i really dont think a guy like tyler evens not dissing him or anything but i highly doubt if he commited to texas or a usc would make him a 4 or a 5 star so some of yur points r really good but when ppl say a guy who commited to texas and was a 3 star and then became 4 star i dont think tht always happens maybe its a coincidense

 
kylemiller said:
i really dont think a guy like tyler evens not dissing him or anything but i highly doubt if he commited to texas or a usc would make him a 4 or a 5 star so some of yur points r really good but when ppl say a guy who commited to texas and was a 3 star and then became 4 star i dont think tht always happens maybe its a coincidense
Click to expand...
disagree strongly. it does happen. sometimes it happens for kids that get an NU offer.

a large part of the ratings comes from who offers a kid. the more esteemed a school is that offers, the higher your rating goes. this is not to say that a texas, USC or florida recruit can not be rated three stars, but they're definitely more likely to be rated highly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think these are especially tough questions...I think the correlation is there, but it doesn't mean you can't win without elite recruiting. I think it does underscore recruiting's importance, which is sometimes overlooked.

I mean, you can have faith in these coaches, but it's also not wrong to get excited about high ranking players or classes. I feel that sometimes, in the BC backlash, people understate recruiting and act like every offerless 2-star is going to be a rock in the foundation, or that criticisms of the staff's recruiting are totally unmerited.

In the end, we pull in classes every year (obviously). But the recruiting game is something that you can watch just like any other game, and if we keep losing battles, or if we just throw out weird offers sometimes, these things aren't beyond scrutiny any more than a playcall or a gametime decision.

But like those two, severe criticisms are likely overblown as well.

 
How many times does Rivals view the film of a Texas commit as opposed to a Boise State commit? If you see it more often, it looks better to you. This is physiological. It's only natural for this to happen to some extent. The question is how much.

 
It's a good thing we have all this to ponder as we wait for football to start. It is quite interesting to me that NU played TX to a standstill last year (ahem, ahem, ahem) with recruit classes that must have ranked number twenty or lower each of the last four years while the Texas classes have ranked in the top one or two each of those years (I'm guessing a bit here so you can fire me.) :)

 
the original post is an interesting one, and begs the question: What is NU's ranking so far for the 2011 class or is there such a thing yet?

And how have the Big 10 teams fared in this "ranking" versus some of these other conferences...most notably, the one we just left?

 
Back
Top