Why recruiting matters, and the importance of signing day

[cm husker]

I'd just about guarantee that the '90s NU champions didn't meet that "elite player metric."

Probably why people start with '98 or whatever.

 

[cm husker]

No one wants to address the question that is begged by this supposedly necessary component to championships?

How does NU get there? Cheat?

If they can't, then do we resign ourselves to never winning another championship? Or do we look to be innovative, if not glamourous?

 

[cornographic]

Saban came to Bama in '07.

Bama's recruiting ranking as per Rivals since '07:

'07--10th

'08--1st

'09--1st

'10--5th

'11--1st

'12--1st

'13--1st

'14--1st

'15--2nd

Bamas accomplishments under Saban:

Won Division--5x

Won Conference--4x

Won NC--4x

Do recruiting rankings correlate strongly with success on the field? Yes. I rest my case.

 

[cornographic]

And it appears that you don't understand logic. Or causation versus correlation. You don't seem to understand that your little "elite" metric stat does not mean a team has 0% chance of winning.

Look back at the last 30 years of champions and you probably find the same thing, with a couple of key exceptions (like Nebraska).

But let's just accept your premise for a moment. What does NU do to somehow elevate its historic average of around 25th in recruiting to sotbing like an average of 15th? Or more like 12th (meaning some years in top 10 and never outside the top 20.

Cheat?

For a number of years now, I've suggested a clandestine football player genetic modification/clone farm, say, out in Western NE, sponsored by ConAgra, Monsanto or something. The idea hasn't gotten any "legs" yet....

 

[Apathy]

[No message]

 

[Apathy]

How do people post pictures of tweets on here?

 

[Saunders]

How do people post pictures of tweets on here?

Copy the url of the tweet, and paste it on the board.

 

[Apathy]

[No message]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

No one wants to address the question that is begged by this supposedly necessary component to championships?

How does NU get there? Cheat?

If they can't, then do we resign ourselves to never winning another championship? Or do we look to be innovative, if not glamourous?

Honestly, I kinda agree with part of your long-running theory: you give outstanding athletes a chance to play the position they really want, even if it means tailoring the scheme. Taylor Martinez gets to be the quarterback he couldn't be in his native Pac 12. Ameer Abdullah may be too small for Auburn, but not if he's willing to bust his a$$ at Nebraska. Westerkamp gets to be the star receiver at a school starved for star receivers.

Or with so much of the spotlight on skill positions, we put a stake in the ground: Nebraska is where offensive linemen rule.

Because when you have a great offensive line, all the skill positions look better.

If Nebraska - the state - isn't glamorous, use it to our advantage. You're not just a big man on campus here. You're a celebrity everywhere you go in the state. It's always interesting to me how many Huskers recruited from elsewhere end up staying in Nebraska for their post-football careers, where they get to be celebrity insurance agents, regional sales managers and high school coaches.

 

[Husker Psycho]

Was Nebraska suppose to have a top 10 class this year? I don't think so. I am not sure what everyone is upset about on this thread. Do teams with top 10 classes have a better chance of winning a NC than teams that are in the mid 20 sure of coarse they do. It is a building process. Nebraska and Mike Riley need to prove that they can win some games with what they have and then the recruits that take you into the top 10 will come.

Winning takes care of itself. It is that simple. But winning takes time.

Baylor and Art Bryles didn't just all of a sudden become good and start bringing in these great recruiting classes. He proved that they could win with what they had and with RG3 he hit a home run. The only reason they got him was that he was going to run track at Baylor. Oregon didn't all of a sudden get good. Neither did MSU it takes time to build to that.

Any team that starts all of a sudden getting great classes without winning first is most likely doing something wrong, see Ole Miss.

It takes time.

The elite player metric is not about class rankings...

It's about the percentage of elite (4 and 5 star players) versus the percentage of average players (3 star or less) that a football program has recruited and signed in the previous 4 years.

 

[Husker Psycho]

I'd just about guarantee that the '90s NU champions didn't meet that "elite player metric."

Probably why people start with '98 or whatever.

What changed everything is that Rivals came along.

Rivals changed college recruiting scouting into something more similar to professional football. They also have kept accurate records of all teams recruiting so comparisons can be easily seen.

The elite teams of today grasped the importance of recruiting quite a while ago. They took advantage of the recruiting services and the knowledge about specific players. Nebraska missed the boat.

Fairy tale and make believe thinking at the very top of our program has caused this to happen. Fairy tale thinking such as "we make the players they don't make us" and "we make great players out of average players" etc have doomed our recruiting. This infantile thinking has come from the very TOP of our program. It cant go on any longer.

The great college football teams of today have more elite players than average players.

Reality and Fact.

 

[Landlord]

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

You don't know what you're talking about.

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

Reality... fact.

2010 and 2014 Oregon did not meet that metric. They had a chance to win the national championship.

 

[Husker Psycho]

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

You don't know what you're talking about.

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

Reality... fact.

2010 and 2014 Oregon did not meet that metric. They had a chance to win the national championship.

But they didn't win... they were soundly beaten last year by a team that had met the metric... Ohio State.

No team has won the national championship in last 11 years... that did not meet that metric.

The elite player metric is a cold hearted... brutal... fact.

We need to come to grips with reality.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

You don't know what you're talking about.

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

Reality... fact.

2010 and 2014 Oregon did not meet that metric. They had a chance to win the national championship.

But they didn't win... they were soundly beaten last year by a team that had met the metric... Ohio State.

No team has won the national championship in last 11 years... that did not meet that metric.

The elite player metric is a cold hearted... brutal... fact.

We need to come to grips with reality.

So should all the schools that sign classes between 11-whatever just not compete that year?

 

[RedDenver]

However, these articles do not prove that regular top 10 classes are NECESSARY to winning a championship (though they certainly help the cause). As was pointed out, he even acknowledges that MSU and other teams are outliers even this year, just like Nebraska was an outlier in its day.

You don't know what you're talking about.

For the last 11 years in a row... without fail... 100% of the time... the team that has won the national championship has achieved the elite player metric (number of elite players on the team - 4 and 5 star players).

If a team has met that metric then they have a chance to win the national championship. If they don't meet that metric they have 0% chance to win the national title... as in zero.

Reality... fact.

Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. You're confusing past results with future returns. It's certainly an interesting trend, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this "metric" will continue to be true. And the first time a non-top-ten-recruiting team wins the title, the "metric" will shift slightly to whatever includes that champion and the previous ones (e.g. "You need a top 13 recruiting class...").

And for Mandel to call everyone else lazy about statistics is laughable - there's only 11 data points for the conclusion he's drawing!!

None of what I'm saying implies that recruiting isn't important though. Just that the evidence being used here does NOT imply future results.