Travis Hanson Aug 13 08

As you said I think it's a balance....There's no doubt that Dr. Tom had his more than fair share of high level recruits some of which have gone down in Husker lore as some of the greatest ever and some that were every bit as big a miss as a number of Callahan's...

I'd much rather see Pelini go after the kid that will fit into that Nebraska team before self mentality...If he happens to be a 3 star versus 4 or 5 then so be it but it's a lot harder to coach attitude and integrity into a kid than the proper technique. Let's face it even a 5 star recruit is going to hit college and their head will be spinning on their shoulders (see Baker Steinkuhler)...all that will come with time it's the attitude and work ethic that will truly determine how far he goes or doesn't go as to often is the case...

Brian Aug 13 08

Sundaymorningqb has done a great analysis of this already.

See http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2008/3/17/71811/4082

James Moore Aug 13 08

Tom,

Some tweaking (personal opinion BUT absolutely correct line of thinking you're taking here. My additions in caps):

Quarterbacks -- QB rating, TDs
(INT's)
Running Backs -- Rush Yards/Game, TDs
(YARDS AFTER CONTACT, YPC,
ATTEMPTS, FUMBLES, AND DOES
FIRST DEFENDER BRING HIM DOWN
ON INITIAL CONTACT)
Wide Receivers -- Reception Yards/Game, TDs
(DROPS, WHERE CATCHES
OCCURS, YAC)

Defensive Linemen -- Sacks, Tackles for Loss
Linebackers -- Total Tackles, Sacks &
(TACKLES FOR LOSS, FORCED
FUMBLES, AND FUMBLE
RECOVERIES)

Defensive Backs -- Interceptions/Game,
Total Tackles
(PASS BREAKUPS & ATTEMPTS
THROWN AT)

But your point is excellent and strikes at the heart of what football is about. Do you MAKE PLAYS!!! Do you finish your assignment and are you capable of completing all assingments over the course of a game. . .

Do you need to get a truckload of 4 and 5 star recruits? Mixed picture. It certainly doesn't hurt (see Ohio State, USC, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, LSU) and you'd certainly take them if you could. BUT look at West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Oregon, Kansas, Auburn, and some others and you can make a point that perhaps you're not that much worse off taking a LITTLE less heralded prospect and developing within your system. As for Husker fans when Coach Pelini has things rolling (a lot sooner than any of us will think) we will be very happy to be picking and choosing which 4 or 5 star prospects we want. After all Coach Pelini IS going after some of the most desirable recruits throughout the country, he got one already in Cody Green and others are seriously considering Nebraska. . .

Bottom line is you've got to get players who are enthusiastic about the coaching staff and program, condition those players to play with intensity, instill discipline on and off the field, play assignment football, finish your plays, and don't make mental mistakes, regardless if you're a 2 or 5 star prospect. . .

I forgot whom it was, but one of the "big guys" here at the site takes huge stock in State Player of The Year and HS Classification. He's right. Both distinctions are excellent indicators of talent, performance, level of competition, and athleticism. If you're a State Player of The Year, wherever you are, you're good, period. Excellent point in your article bro, and it captures the EXACT essence of what Coach Pelini is trying to bring to the program. Looking forward to the article next week. . .

GO BIG RED!!!

bnahusker Aug 13 08

While I am interested to read your findings, I think that you need to add at least one more stat. This is a bottom line world, and if you aren't including wins and losses in your study, what are you going to learn? I know that it may not be "fair" to saddle a player with a loss for a game that he had great stats, but if the program doesn't improve the stars didn't mean much. I'd start by comparing the previous 4-5 years with the 4-5 years a player was with a team, and make my decision on a Pass/Fail scale since some teams have a lot less room for improvement.(NU '98-2001, LSU, USC, OU, etc.)

GBR!

Bob

carlinthemarlin Aug 13 08

People who argue that star rankings matter or don't matter are kind of missing the point of star rankings. They're a ranking of potential, and as such are as accurate as anything, but they don't predict the future. There's simply no way to know who will flame out, who will get injured, who will not qualify, who will etc, etc.

Take the case of Michael Crabtree. In 2006, Crabtree was considered a four star prospect and member of the rivals 250. In other words, on the lower end of the elites. He was an elite prospect, but not considered as sure a thing as others because his size wasn't great and he wasn't the fastest athlete out their. When he gets to campus, who grows three inches and ads 20 pounds of muscle, and suddenly he's the best freshman wide receiver in the country.

There was no way to predict this, and he probably would have been the number one player in his class if it could have been predicted. But, they did project him as someone with All-American potential, and so in that respect, they were right.

Similarly, there was no way to predict that Harrison Beck lacked the mental panache to be the starting QB for a major Division I program. He was rated based on his physical skill and his performance in high school. So they didn't get it wrong so much as he didn't live up to his potential.

All of which is to say stars don't matter because they don't dictate how a kid will react to the pressure of big-time college football. But it's no accident that teams with good recruiting rankings tend to do better than those without: all other things being equal (which they aren't), stars a very good indication of a players potential, and if you're coaches can consistently get that potential from them (see: Pete Carroll), you'll be a very, very good team.

Bill in Iowa Aug 13 08

I compared Kansas, Mizzou, and Nebraska on rivals during the passed 4 years. As a whole, in the Big 12, with the exception of last year, the Huskers mostly ranked in the top 3 in the Big 12 in recruiting. However, Kansas and Mizzou, with the exception of last year, consistenly ranked 6 or worse. What's been the difference between their programs and ours is coaching and developing talent, in my opinion. While we have been enamored with stars and going after JUCO's (which many have worked out well for a year or two of elgibility), they have been building a program and using top athletes like Chase Daniels for 4 years of playing time. Of course, with our new staff I think things are going to turn around. I am not sad to see us pick up 4 and 5 star rated kids, but I am not concerned when we don't. And I certainly like how we are not going after too many JUCO's. We need speedy athletes we can develop and use 4-5 years to play Pelini ball. Give our coaches with our facilities 4-5 years and they will make their own stars.

donfl Aug 13 08

I think you need to add a non numeric element to your evaluation, and that is intellegence!! Kids who achieve in the classroom and are football smart tend to pick up the overall concept of football schemes and tend to make less of the mistakes that cause you to lose football games. The fact that we lead the nation, by a wide margin, in academic All Americans speaks volumes about this element being essential in the evaluation process. GBR

bnahusker Aug 14 08

Is it done yet?!