Riley vs. Harbaugh Recruiting: A Parent Chimes In

[cm husker]

Did Tom ever have a recruiting class ranked what Riley's is?

His 1990 class, averaged out across the ranking services as that time, was a 28.33. The only data I'm aware of goes back to 1987, but I also haven't searched that hard for years prior to that.

I don't think OZ ever got very highly ranked recruiting classes. ~20th range on average. Rozier was a community college transfer. We were always 2nd fiddle to Barry in the conference in terms of talent and speed. And then it was The U, and FSU, yada yada. NE is a "coach 'em up" school, always has been, always will be. Of course, if we start winning the division on a regular basis and, heaven forbid, the conference every now and then, well, recruiting can't help but get better.

That simply isn't true, from 87-96 TO signed 5 top 10 classes.

Really, can you prove it?

TO would not be well under today's scholarship limits. That's just a claim and it's proven false with the data above (taken from Huskermax.com's recruiting pages). Not only do people inflate Osborne's statistics, they also forget that he did have 7-10 more scholly's up until 1994. Not to take away from where he took us and what he did...just that it'd be nice if we referred to facts.

Your numbers actually prove exactly the opposite, even with your arbitrary 4-year groupings that try to show otherwise! You seem to ignore attrition all together. Reality is, TO only three times (28, 26, 28) exceeded 25 scholarships in a given year (25 being the yearly limit now, not including 3 schollie buffer that takes the limit to 28). 10 times during that period, he signed classes of 22 or less.

Try looking at the the average recruiting class size during a 4 year period of almost any other major P5 program today, and you'll see many more than 87 to 92 kids signed.

Thank you for proving that TO's recruiting numbers, at least based on signing day scholarships awarded, would have complied with today's rules.

As a sidenote: it's absurd that we are limiting scholarships like this with the money that's sloshing around CFB. So many opportunities for kids to get more free education, and we are instead arbitrarily limiting the numbers. Pure stupidity (and greed?) on the part of the Universities and Colleges.

What I proved is that he had more scholly's to give out and that he wouldn't be under 85. I grouped them by 4 years so that they would coincide with the changes in scholarship rules I posted at the top of the stats.

25 is not a hard limit anywhere...just look here at class size: http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

85 total is the limit. At any given time, TO had more than that all the way up to his last year. Remember...85 TOTAL.

But hey, mold it to fit what you want right?

Do you comprehend the concept of attrition?

For example, NU has signed during 86 during past 4 classes, and that was a middle of the pack number in the B10.

You also don't seem to understand how the 85 operates. It's not that a team can't have more than 85 at a given time. It's that they must be at or under 85 by the fall.

Also, you're incorrect regarding the 25 per year limit, though, as I have mentioned, there are ways around it:

NCAA Bylaw 15.5.6.1 limits FBS football programs to a total number of scholarships to 85 "counters" annually including 25 scholarships for "initial counters." Counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3) are individuals who are receiving institutional financial aid that is countable against the aid limitations in a sport, initial counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3.1) are individuals who are receiving countable financial aid in a sport for the first time. Bylaw 13.9.2.3 limits schools to signing 28 NLI from initial signing day through May 31.[1]

Oversigning can occur in two ways. First, if a school signs a number of NLI that may bring their total number of counters above the NCAA limit of 85. Second would be to sign more than 25 NLI during the period between National Signing Day and May 31.

Oversigning occurs in other sports but has received the most attention from media members and fans, in regard to Division I FBS college football.[2][3][4]

NCAA rules permit oversigning up to 28 NLI, though some college football fans view oversigning as unethical, arguing that it requires schools and coaches to be dishonest with young adult and adolescent recruits by promising them a roster spot and scholarship only to pull it before the person graduates or even makes the team

 

[cm husker]

By your numbers, NU only landed 3 top 10 classes in 10 years prior to the championship run. That's not bad, of course, but I think the numbers at your other link tell the story better. I can't seem to cut and paste the chart, but NU had no top 5 finished between '87 and '94 and had more finishes in the 20s as it did in the top 10 during that span.

Classic cm. He is shown numbers. Tells someone they are wrong. Are shown they are right. Then disregards those numbers all together.

If you go by a combination of Emfinger/Wallace/Lemming, Nebraska had 3 top 10 classes in the 5 prior for both the 94 and 95 title teams.

Or, we go back the averages listed in your other link rather than cherry-picking single years from various recruitnik rankings from a time during the infancy of that cottage industry.

 

[cm husker]

TO handed out more than anyone after him?

Did Tom ever have a recruiting class ranked what Riley's is?

His 1990 class, averaged out across the ranking services as that time, was a 28.33. The only data I'm aware of goes back to 1987, but I also haven't searched that hard for years prior to that.

I don't think OZ ever got very highly ranked recruiting classes. ~20th range on average. Rozier was a community college transfer. We were always 2nd fiddle to Barry in the conference in terms of talent and speed. And then it was The U, and FSU, yada yada. NE is a "coach 'em up" school, always has been, always will be. Of course, if we start winning the division on a regular basis and, heaven forbid, the conference every now and then, well, recruiting can't help but get better.

That simply isn't true, from 87-96 TO signed 5 top 10 classes.

Really, can you prove it?

TO would not be well under today's scholarship limits. That's just a claim and it's proven false with the data above (taken from Huskermax.com's recruiting pages). Not only do people inflate Osborne's statistics, they also forget that he did have 7-10 more scholly's up until 1994. Not to take away from where he took us and what he did...just that it'd be nice if we referred to facts.

Your numbers actually prove exactly the opposite, even with your arbitrary 4-year groupings that try to show otherwise! You seem to ignore attrition all together. Reality is, TO only three times (28, 26, 28) exceeded 25 scholarships in a given year (25 being the yearly limit now, not including 3 schollie buffer that takes the limit to 28). 10 times during that period, he signed classes of 22 or less.

Try looking at the the average recruiting class size during a 4 year period of almost any other major P5 program today, and you'll see many more than 87 to 92 kids signed.

Thank you for proving that TO's recruiting numbers, at least based on signing day scholarships awarded, would have complied with today's rules.

As a sidenote: it's absurd that we are limiting scholarships like this with the money that's sloshing around CFB. So many opportunities for kids to get more free education, and we are instead arbitrarily limiting the numbers. Pure stupidity (and greed?) on the part of the Universities and Colleges.

What I proved is that he had more scholly's to give out and that he wouldn't be under 85. I grouped them by 4 years so that they would coincide with the changes in scholarship rules I posted at the top of the stats.

25 is not a hard limit anywhere...just look here at class size: http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

85 total is the limit. At any given time, TO had more than that all the way up to his last year. Remember...85 TOTAL.

But hey, mold it to fit what you want right?

Do you comprehend the concept of attrition?

For example, NU has signed during 86 during past 4 classes, and that was a middle of the pack number in the B10.

You also don't seem to understand how the 85 operates. It's not that a team can't have more than 85 at a given time. It's that they must be at or under 85 by the fall.

Also, you're incorrect regarding the 25 per year limit, though, as I have mentioned, there are ways around it:

NCAA Bylaw 15.5.6.1 limits FBS football programs to a total number of scholarships to 85 "counters" annually including 25 scholarships for "initial counters." Counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3) are individuals who are receiving institutional financial aid that is countable against the aid limitations in a sport, initial counters (NCAA Bylaw 15.02.3.1) are individuals who are receiving countable financial aid in a sport for the first time. Bylaw 13.9.2.3 limits schools to signing 28 NLI from initial signing day through May 31.[1]

Oversigning can occur in two ways. First, if a school signs a number of NLI that may bring their total number of counters above the NCAA limit of 85. Second would be to sign more than 25 NLI during the period between National Signing Day and May 31.

Oversigning occurs in other sports but has received the most attention from media members and fans, in regard to Division I FBS college football.[2][3][4]

Yes, I understand...nothing you have said here changes anything...scholarship limits changed in 1995...before that, they had more.

I showed TO handed out more than anyone after him...BECAUSE HE COULD. Who wouldn't? What kind of coach would be moronic enough to say "oh hey, that limit thing...it's really dumb. I think I'll shoot for WAAAAY under the scholarship limit."

TO was not an idiot. He hit his scholarship limit as much as he could any way he could because he was a smart and good coach.

IF you have to ignore me splitting them up into 4 year groups to understand, please do. I broke them up that way because it made sense to me and jived with the time periods scholarship totals changed.

I don't know what to tell you other than, a smart coach takes the maximum number of guys he can to fit his system. He doesn't shotgun offers out and then just fill a class to the max. If you go back and read TO's comments about classes, he would talk about not trying to sign 25+ kids just for the heck of it. It was more about signing the "right" 22 or so.

Based on TO's record of LOIs signed, he would not have had a problem complying with today's restrictions, because he wasn't bumping up against the previous restrictions (assuming even an impressive attrition rate of only 20%). Even with the 4 year groupings you had, TO wasn't maxing out or close to the scholarship limits (not including whatever he may have awarded to walkons).

As to the allegation that TO signed more than his successors, Callahan signed 84 in just 3 classes (between '05 and '07).

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'm not taking saying away from them by pointing out what TO repeatedly talked about, especially along the OL. It's much easier to recruit a 6'1 athelete who can effectively run block and play action block than ask that same kid to pass pro consistently or find a different "prototypical" kid who can pass pro consistently.

Think of it this way: with less than top 20 talent, NU was consistently top 10 team.

When the stars aligned, and they had top 10 talent, they went on arguably the most dominant run of all time.

That '95 team isn't the most talented of all time, yet it dominated like no other team ever has. Why? Scheme.

Couple things:

If scheme can so successfully cover for talent, why haven't more teams run an Osborne style offense? You make the advantage sound like a no-brainer.

Since so few teams rely so little on passing, that means the vast majority of college football teams are filling their ranks with football-sized linemen who know how to both pass block and run block. Maybe they are dazzled by the bright lights of East Lansing, Provo, Bloomington, Tuscaloosa or Norman, leaving poor Nebraska to troll for 6'1" linemen who lack a key skill and have no ambition for professional football.

Or maybe you just have it wrong. Success has always been a combination of talent, scheme and coaching. And sometimes a bit of luck. Laying it all at the feet of scheme is just silly and I think you know that. But you dug yourself in too deep and you just can't stop.

Are people really blaming the players far more than the staff? I see plenty of blame on both sides and glimmers of hope as well.

So we could take a deep breath and see what Mike Riley can do with some new recruits, the players who bought in, and the lessons of his first season.

 

[cm husker]

Most of the top offenses in the country have borrowed heavily from TO's principles. Even those doing it with a little more pass (i.e., those south of the mason Dixon).

I can't explain why a lot of coaches don't switch to kore effective systems. Even back when TO was winning a ton, coaches weren't switching. Some of its ego; they want to run a pro style system and emulate the pro game. Some of it's a matter of momentum and understanding. Coaches come up under one system, and it's really hard for them to break their habits even when they see other coaches succeeding with something else. Other teams may not face the disadvantages/circumstances that face NU, so they can get away with a more pro style system. I don't know that even those teams field elite or exciting offenses, but I can see why they don't bother switching.

In any event, I can't get past TO's comments that he developed a system that is best suited for Nebraska. Especially when I look to missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Colorado and see programs that have found little to no success running "pro style" systems, particularly when those systems don't feature a mobile QB as a primary run threat.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I see the problem.

You think a team that throws the ball is running a "pro style" offense not suited to college level talent.

The reason why a lot of coaches don't switch to more a effective system is because they already have one. Like Tom Osborne, they take bits and pieces of the offenses that came before them, including the triple option running attack and the WCO, and adapt to their needs. Because defenses are constantly adjusting to counter those moves, offenses have to keep changing sets and schemes. But it's still college football. There's running and passing and the best players do a lot of things well.

Again, the demand of finding offensive linemen that can get both dominate forward push and fast sideways pull is comparable to finding offensive lineman who can hold a pass rush. A good triple option quarterback has to be every bit the athlete and decision-maker as a pro-set quarterback. It's not like they're easier to find. Because every offense benefits from good running backs, you'll still be competing with every other team for good running backs.

You seem to be engaging in a false argument between a true air raid offense -- of which there are few --- and a vintage power option offense -- of which there are few. Most teams, including everyone in the Big 10, fall somewhere in the middle. The best teams have deep talent and good coaching. It's always been that way.

 

[cm husker]

I would rather NU go to an air raid system then try to chase "balance" in terms of play selection.

It's not passing that I dislike, though I don't think B10 country is conducive to it. It's the notion that NU can and should "be equally good at two things" that make me concerned.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I would rather NU go to an air raid system then try to chase "balance" in terms of play selection.

It's not passing that I dislike, though I don't think B10 country is conducive to it. It's the notion that NU can and should "be equally good at two things" that make me concerned.

That's pretty weird, even for you.

Why do you keep putting "balance" in quotations marks? Why on earth do you think it's difficult or undesirable for a team to be good at both passing the ball and running the ball? Teams do it all the time. High school teams. Pop Warner teams. It's not exotic or difficult to pull off. It's just football.

The Big 10 is conducive to passing....when the situation calls for it. Jim Harbaugh needed his QB to wing it 50 times to beat Indiana. Stave threw the ball 50 times in a Wisconsin game last season. Michigan State did too. Other games they kept it on the ground. Everybody loves a good ground game, as long as you can get away with it. When you can't, you pass the ball. When you can keep them guessing, all the better. If you like dual threat quarterbacks, you really gotta like dual threat offenses.

This "jack of all trades, master of none" meme is kinda tiresome. No idea why you'd have to choose. Other teams don't. Good teams are master of a bunch of trades, including defense. That's the whole point of being good. You act like "balance" is something beyond the simple needs and abilities of Nebraska. You've already given up on our ability to compete for recruits.

If the words "equal" and 'balance" are hanging you up, then sure, I'd rather see more of a 60/40 run pass split than last year's 50/50. That's where the teams we aspire to be hang out, and it's a far cry from either an air raid or vintage option offense.

 

[cm husker]

Yes. Teams do it all of the time. And usually they end up being pretty average or worse.

I wont bother to explain to you why a 65/35 or more unbalanced ratio in favor of the pass is actually more effective, because you don't want to listen. Hell, you even point to stave as a positive example of offensive effectiveness.

It's cool.

 

[Enhance]

Yes. Teams do it all of the time. And usually they end up being pretty average or worse.

I wont bother to explain to you why a 65/35 or more unbalanced ratio in favor of the pass is actually more effective, because you don't want to listen. Hell, you even point to stave as a positive example of offensive effectiveness.

It's cool.

That seems like a pretty bold statement to make - do you know of any statistical analysis or data that supports this claim? The defending national champions, the Alabama Crimson Tide, were a 53% pass & 47% rush team in 2015. That's about as balanced as you're going to get. You're probably going to say that they're an outlier, not a standard. I would like to see some statistical proof that is wide-ranging and applicable across the entire college football landscape if that is your argument. Otherwise, it really doesn't mean much.

Regardless, go back and look at Riley's run/pass splits back to 2003. You'll find he had three seasons where his teams threw 63.8, 61.3 and 58.3 percent of the time. He also had a season where they threw 55.7 percent of the time. Otherwise, they've floated roughly in the 50/50 realm.

Furthermore, his best seasons (2006, 2007) featured a ~52 percent favoring of the run and a 55 percent favoring the run.

All this means is Riley appears to strive for balance, but he had several seasons where he threw that to the wind in favor of the part of his offense he felt was more successful, including being very close to that 65/35 ratio you mentioned (and just so you know - the 2013 season is when they threw 63.8 percent of the time and they went 7-6.)

 

[cm husker]

Offensively, Alabama was really quite average. Bama has won their championships with defense, for the most part.

Look at the top 10 offensive teams and there split.

Your comments about Riley's record just show me that he's truly a man without a system. And that is a recipe for mediocrity in college football. It doesn't surprise me he's had such a below average record.

 

[Enhance]

Offensively, Alabama was really quite average. Bama has won their championships with defense, for the most part.

Look at the top 10 offensive teams and there split.

Your comments about Riley's record just show me that he's truly a man without a system. And that is a recipe for mediocrity in college football. It doesn't surprise me he's had such a below average record.

Yes, Alabama has won championships due in large part to their defense, and I realize there were some defensive discussions going on here. However, you're moving the goal posts a bit to fit your argument now. No team with a bad defense wins championships and I was specifically responding to your post which was directly making a point about offense. Offense is the foundation of this conversation here.

Until you can statistically prove with verifiable data that which I requested, then I don't think your argument holds much water. I also think you may be surprised how many coaches run relatively 'balanced' offenses and are successful.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Yes. Teams do it all of the time. And usually they end up being pretty average or worse.

I wont bother to explain to you why a 65/35 or more unbalanced ratio in favor of the pass is actually more effective, because you don't want to listen. Hell, you even point to stave as a positive example of offensive effectiveness.

It's cool.

Good Lord.

Most teams are pretty average or worse, regardless of the scheme they run. That's called "math."

 

[cm husker]

Yes. Teams do it all of the time. And usually they end up being pretty average or worse.

I wont bother to explain to you why a 65/35 or more unbalanced ratio in favor of the pass is actually more effective, because you don't want to listen. Hell, you even point to stave as a positive example of offensive effectiveness.

It's cool.

Good Lord.

Most teams are pretty average or worse, regardless of the scheme they run. That's called "math."

"Usually they end up pretty average or worse" relative to the entire list of college football offenses. You do realize there's a large (growing) body of college football offenses that have scrapped the outmoded immobile QB-headed "balanced" offenses, right?

I love when you try to get snarky but fail reading comprehension in the process, Guy.

 

[Saunders]

Keep it civil guys.