Sipple: Osborne weighs in on Husker recruiting

[Creighton Duke]

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.

I agree with this to a decent extent. I mean, look how much it matters in college baseball.

 

[junior4949]

Hockey is another sport. How many hot prospects for hockey come from Florida or Texas?

 

[Nexus]

This quote bears repeating whenever the topic of recruiting at Nebraska comes up. I've posted it a couple of times in different threads in the past, so apologies in advance to those who have already read it. The article itself is a couple years old.

Clemson defensive coordinator Kevin Steele has coached about everywhere -- in the NFL, under Nick Saban at Alabama and Bobby Bowden at Florida State. Steele said the best player development system he observed was at Nebraska, where he coached linebackers under Tom Osborne.
"When I was at Nebraska, we never had top recruiting classes, we never did," Steele said. "But we had a system, and coach Osborne just had a way of developing players. They lead the nation in non-scholarship players becoming first-round draft picks."

Steele said part of Nebraska's success was the number of players it brought to camp. SEC programs like Alabama have come under criticism for over-signing and then using different practices to trim rosters down to 85 scholarships.

At Nebraska, Steele said he needed an auditorium to conduct linebacker meetings.

"At the time I was there, we had 187 players," Steele said. "I had 19 linebackers. You have two pass skeletons going on at the same time, two inside run (drills) going on at the same time. Everything is done in twos, so you are getting reps all the time. By the time a guy becomes a starter, he has done it 50,000 times."

LINK

 

[Creighton Duke]

Hockey is another sport. How many hot prospects for hockey come from Florida or Texas?

Do they have ice skating rinks in those states?

 

[Internet Smartguy]

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

This is a huge misconception. Bill Callahan had 4 recruiting classed while he was coach here and in those classes he signed 15 Nebraska kids (not counting Walk-ons) for an average of 3.75 kids per class. Bo Pelini has had 5 full classes while at Nebraska and he has signed 17 Nebraska kids (not counting Walk-ons) for and average of 3.4. As of right now this year there is only one verbal from an in-state kid and the only one from last year had the last name Cotton.



Maybe Pelini is bringing in more in-state Walk-On’s but he definitely is not signing more scholarship athletes on signing day then the previous staff was.

 

[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.

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.

To a degree this is true about Jadavey, but the kid is good. They were raving about him when he got there.

Nebraska is never going to compete with the SEC for that many recruits. The proximaty to home is too great a draw for the majority of them. The sooner NU proves they can compete regularly for big 10 titles and put a consistant product on the field they will start getting more of the highly rated players, but NU wil always fight the battle of low population.

Nebraska always recruited their sorrounding states well. They always pulled 6-10 of the best kids every year from Missouri, Kansas, Colorado and Iowa. They don't get as many as they used to they need to get back to this also.

 

[NUinID]

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

This is a huge misconception. Bill Callahan had 4 recruiting classed while he was coach here and in those classes he signed 15 Nebraska kids (not counting Walk-ons) for an average of 3.75 kids per class. Bo Pelini has had 5 full classes while at Nebraska and he has signed 17 Nebraska kids (not counting Walk-ons) for and average of 3.4. As of right now this year there is only one verbal from an in-state kid and the only one from last year had the last name Cotton.

Maybe Pelini is bringing in more in-state Walk-On’s but he definitely is not signing more scholarship athletes on signing day then the previous staff was.

In state scholarship talent is cyclical. When Nebraska is really good, they have a lot of in state talent. Look at the teams from 93-99 lots of instate talent. The 97 team started a Nebraska backfield.

 

[HuskerNationNick]

Scout, Rivals and 247, are all jokes when it comes to rating kids. How can one have someone as a 2*, another a 3* and another rate them as a 4*? There team rankings are all different. I follow Rivals, for a couple reasons, to see who is being looked at, and read practice reports as well as basic Husker news. A buddy and I alternate payments, I pay one year, he pays another. A lot of these rankings are for entertainment, rather than true facts. Make fans believe that their schools are incapable of getting the best. Sure they are good in high school, but how are you able to grade someone who has yet to play collegiate ball? You simply can't. You can guess, and that is what they do. A walk-on can be big name guy, just as much as a "5 star" kid can during college ball. It all comes down to COACHING.

 

[BigRedBuster]

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

This is a huge misconception. Bill Callahan had 4 recruiting classed while he was coach here and in those classes he signed 15 Nebraska kids (not counting Walk-ons) for an average of 3.75 kids per class. Bo Pelini has had 5 full classes while at Nebraska and he has signed 17 Nebraska kids (not counting Walk-ons) for and average of 3.4. As of right now this year there is only one verbal from an in-state kid and the only one from last year had the last name Cotton.

Maybe Pelini is bringing in more in-state Walk-On’s but he definitely is not signing more scholarship athletes on signing day then the previous staff was.

In state scholarship talent is cyclical. When Nebraska is really good, they have a lot of in state talent. Look at the teams from 93-99 lots of instate talent. The 97 team started a Nebraska backfield.

How many did either one recruit from western Nebraska? I usually shy away from comparing current coaches with TO but in this situation I think it holds water. TO was willing to come out into rural Nebraska and other states to find good talent with potential. coaches now days never hardly go past GI.

 

[Creighton Duke]

Scout, Rivals and 247, are all jokes when it comes to rating kids. How can one have someone as a 2*, another a 3* and another rate them as a 4*? There team rankings are all different. I follow Rivals, for a couple reasons, to see who is being looked at, and read practice reports as well as basic Husker news. A buddy and I alternate payments, I pay one year, he pays another. A lot of these rankings are for entertainment, rather than true facts. Make fans believe that their schools are incapable of getting the best. Sure they are good in high school, but how are you able to grade someone who has yet to play collegiate ball? You simply can't. You can guess, and that is what they do. A walk-on can be big name guy, just as much as a "5 star" kid can during college ball. It all comes down to COACHING.

So if "it all come down to COACHING" then, judging by the last 7 national champs, Brown, Meyer, Miles, Saban, and Chizik (lulz) are all better than Pelini? It doesn't matter that they get highly rated recruiting classes every year?

 

[HuskerNationNick]

Scout, Rivals and 247, are all jokes when it comes to rating kids. How can one have someone as a 2*, another a 3* and another rate them as a 4*? There team rankings are all different. I follow Rivals, for a couple reasons, to see who is being looked at, and read practice reports as well as basic Husker news. A buddy and I alternate payments, I pay one year, he pays another. A lot of these rankings are for entertainment, rather than true facts. Make fans believe that their schools are incapable of getting the best. Sure they are good in high school, but how are you able to grade someone who has yet to play collegiate ball? You simply can't. You can guess, and that is what they do. A walk-on can be big name guy, just as much as a "5 star" kid can during college ball. It all comes down to COACHING.

So if "it all come down to COACHING" then, judging by the last 7 national champs, Brown, Meyer, Miles, Saban, and Chizik (lulz) are all better than Pelini? It doesn't matter that they get highly rated recruiting classes every year?

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.

 

[LumberJackSker]

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

 

[4skers89]

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.

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've always thought that getting a 5 star player for DL or OL isn't so important. If they are 5 stars supposedly they can come in and start as a freshman, so I question how much more can they improve. These kids are young and the majority probably haven't fully developed into their body when they start college. I think it is OK to bring in 3 or 4 star players and give them a couple of years to develop strength and technique before they are ready to play. If they have the right attitude and body type they can become quite good. I think the skill positions are more important to get the 4 or 5 star players. It's probably difficult to develop speed or coach up a kid to catch a ball, throw it or read holes to run through. They either have these abilites (perhaps not fully refined) or don't when they come out of high school.

 

[Creighton Duke]

Scout, Rivals and 247, are all jokes when it comes to rating kids. How can one have someone as a 2*, another a 3* and another rate them as a 4*? There team rankings are all different. I follow Rivals, for a couple reasons, to see who is being looked at, and read practice reports as well as basic Husker news. A buddy and I alternate payments, I pay one year, he pays another. A lot of these rankings are for entertainment, rather than true facts. Make fans believe that their schools are incapable of getting the best. Sure they are good in high school, but how are you able to grade someone who has yet to play collegiate ball? You simply can't. You can guess, and that is what they do. A walk-on can be big name guy, just as much as a "5 star" kid can during college ball. It all comes down to COACHING.

So if "it all come down to COACHING" then, judging by the last 7 national champs, Brown, Meyer, Miles, Saban, and Chizik (lulz) are all better than Pelini? It doesn't matter that they get highly rated recruiting classes every year?

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.

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?

 

[HuskerNationNick]

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.

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?

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.