In the grand scheme of things Nebraska gets what Nebraska gets
7 comments so far
February 9, 2010 by
How did you feel about this year's recruiting class? Better than last year? Worse? The general consensus for people who like to label those sort of things was that it was a solid class that lacked a little "pizazz."
The experts, we'll use Rivals, ranked last year's class 28th in the country and this year's class 23rd using their "state of the art" point system that factors in quantity as well as quality of signees.
But get away from the quantity side of the equation, forget for a moment all the questions and protestations inherent to ranking recruits, and focus solely on quality. However you feel about any group or individual's ability to assign that "quality" via star rankings, at least it's a basis for comparison. And using that basis of comparison, Nebraska basically brought in the class they've been bringing in.
Alongside their national class rankings Rivals lists an "Average Star" rating (ASR) for each school. The calculation is simple: total number of stars divided by total number of players.
In 2009 NU had an ASR of 3.25. This most recent class came in at 3.24. Under the "this is objective" assumption did you feel more than 1/100th of an average star better about last year's haul than this year's? What does 1/100th of an average star look like?
What about that star laden group Bill Callahan brought in in 2005? That class was ranked fifth in the nation by Rivals and, on average, was about one percent more talented at 3.33 ASR than this year's class. Over his first three years the ASR for Callahan's classes was 3.14 with an average national class ranking of about 17th. In Pelini's first three classes he has an ASR of 3.15 with a national class rank average of 27th. Take quantity out and the two coaches brought in nearly identical talent by Rivals estimation but with the focus on national rankings Callahan gets the reputation as a strong recruiter and Pelini get's a "meh" from most recruiting pundits.
Of course the big difference between the two coaches in their first three years on the job is on the field. With an eight win season in 2010 Pelini will match Callahan's win total over four years.
In my mind, there are a couple of takeaways here:
1) The margin in these rankings is razor thin. If Nebraska lands that one five star guy whose name I'm not going to bother learning how to spell now, they probably jump six or eight spots in the rankings. One guy. And this happens every year across the country, but how many Suh-type players do you see every fall?
2) You are who you are. Darren wrote that geography matters the day after signing day and that's the one reason you consistently see pulled out as a cause for any of the perceived struggles the Huskers might have on the recruiting trail. Maybe that's a good explanation. It makes sense but the point is this: On average, Nebraska is continuing to get the players they've always gotten.
Osborne said on signing day that most of his classes fell in the 20-25 range. Take out the two transition years (2004 and 2008) and the range of ASRs for Nebraska since 2002 is 3.05 - 3.33. Alabama got the same class coming off a national title this season (ASR of 3.62) as they did in 2006 coming off a 3-7-1 record in Mike Shula's third year (ASR of 3.61). Simply put, recruiting rankings fluctuate much less than the rankings that actually matter.
3) Based on one and two, you can continue to feel like coaching and development matter more than any recruiting ranking ever could. At least I assume, based on what they're seeing on the field, that's how most Nebraska fans come down on this issue.
Recruiting is a fun diversion. A necessary one for many of us but based on what I found here, but I'm just going to stick with my standard line: I'll be rooting for Nebraska next year no matter who is or isn't there.
That's why we're college football fans.
Did you enjoy this article?
Get Husker news by email
Follow us on Twitter
Related Stories: Recruiting
Post a comment
Dwayne Feb 09 10
For NU, probably more than any other top 10 program, player development is paramount. NU will always struggle to pull in the types of classes that Texas, Florida, and USC can nab. And I am perfectly fine with that. One can easily identify what's important to this staff as they pursue prospects: character, determination, and motivation to succeed all seem to be just as important as athletic ability. All of which are keys in team building.
Matt Feb 09 10
Agreed Dwayne. Glad to see we're back to doin' it old school when it comes to recruiting. While I wouldn't turn away a Top-10 recruiting class, I do say that our achieving them pre-success (read: MNC, Big XII Title, or BCS Appearance) is likely not in the cards.
No biggie. We saw what what the Recruiting NC got Texas--one second, four referees, and a Big XII conference from embarrassment; that, and a whole boatload of karma in the MNC game against 'Bama.
darren Feb 09 10
Good stuff as always, Brandon.
You'll find few people as skeptical about "star" ratings as I am. However, both the player ratings and class ranks serve a purpose - they give the average Joe fan a way to simply describe a player and class (3-star prospect, #22 rated class, etc). Beyond their use as a "handle", they serve little purpose. But, convenience is important to people.
Now, it is pretty clear that there is some correlation between having a class in the top 25 of the recruiting ratings and in the top 25 of the football polls. There are teams that underperform their recruiting (ND, FSU are recent examples) and those that overperform (BSU, TCU). But, by in large, it is fair for NU fans to want to see their team in that top 25 teams listed for recruiting.
NU doesn't *need* to be in the top 15 or 10. As you said, the margin between slots is razor thin. But, NU can't afford to be in the mid-40s either.
Gary Feb 10 10
There is strong correlation between recruiting classes and the national football polls. In statistical terms, the R-square within college football divisions is very high, sometimes above 95% correlation. However, I find it a great determining factor on how well your football team is coached. Obviously, Callahan didn't coach to the potential of his player's. Pelini on the other hand is either coaching better then Callahan (which he is) and/or finding recruits that are under rated. Anyway you look at it, Bo Pelini has results.
Mark Mangino had results with recruiting classes in the bottom of the Big 12. Oklahoma obviously under produced compared to their top 10 recruting classes they've had in the last 5 years. In the end, anything is possible with the right coach!
Greg Morrow Feb 11 10
Since '02, what Nebraska hasn't gotten, is O-line depth (until now, apparently) and real offensive difference makers, who are perfect for the systems. I mean, there's many reasons why Nebraska's only now close enough to sniff Top 10 status. Breakout skill guys are just one of 'em.
In this system, it was unfortunate Nebraska only had Zac Taylor, for two seasons. And, effectively only had Brandon Jackson, for one. As incoming recruits, they were considered top notch, ready to help the team out. They were ideal for the offense.
Personally, I think the difference with this class to the previous, is Ankrah and Martin, compared with Guy and Lavonte, perception wise. Like that .01 space Brandon was referring to. I don't know, but I knew Martin was, is, going to be good. Even though Nebraska didn't have to beat many teams for him.
So, looking back, even if these classes compared with Osborne's nationally, he found the golden nugget scorers, who were obviously perfect for his system.
HuskerRob Feb 11 10
As a rabid Husker fan down here in Tiger territory in St. Louis, I too am very sceptical of the ratings. I saw both Gabberts play in high school and was amazed at their high star rankings. Neither was even the best QB in the St. Louis area. So when they decommitted I was not broken hearted. This year they rank Missouri's recruiting class higher, not buying it, they have two linemen coming in who are trying to recover from super serious knee injuries (Demien, Gatti)and lost the best kid in the state (in my opinion) from their own back yard (Rome) who was absolutely a destroyer on defense. The Huskers under Pelini seem to develop players better than anybody and they are super tough and nasty, I,love that. The wild card in this whole thing is the walk on program, like gold, so important and those kids are so driven they make everybody else better. I cannot wait for the 2010 season Go Big Red!
BallField Feb 24 10
I am always amazed how people who look at stars never discuss the really important stats.
It's not how many players with stars, it's not the average stars. If you disregard player development (don't) then the stars that are important are the top 10-12 players rankings, because generally you get Juniors and Seniors (yes sometimes sophomores and rarely freshmen) on the field. Two full classess, two units (O&D, because special teams are usually a mix of players on both, with exceptions.) That's 44 players, 22 getting replaced every 2 years. So it's really the top 10-12 players in a class (regardless of stars) that matter. The rest are just competition, incentive. If you get 20 3-stars, average 3.0. If you get 10 4-stars and 10 2-stars, average 3.0. Guess which gets on the field?