[Husker] Recruiting

[Mark Landin]

Burkhead was a 3. Prince was a 3. It's not an exact science at all.

On 12/27/11, Skylar Dodds <sklarbodds at cox.net> wrote:
> It's actually nowhere near that simple.  I'm not a Rivals apologist by any
> means, but that implication says that their evaluations mean nothing which
> is pretty false.
>
> First, quantity is a FACTOR in deciding recruiting rankings, but it's not
> simply a star*quantity = score....not even close.   And no, 3 2-stars would
> not outweigh 1 5-star.
>
> Second, I will point out that while NU probably won't finish anywhere near
> the top 10, they are in the top 10 in 'star average' I believe and as long
> as we finish in that range and have the 16-17 recruits we need without
> having to majorly 'compromise' taking whoever we can get, we'll be just
> fine.
>
> We have quite a few VERY high profile recruits that are still deciding on NU
> and a few have NU leading outright.  A few of those announce in the next two
> weeks at all-star games, the rest will probably be closer to signing day.
>
> While it is concerning we only have 9 commits (8.5 really), it still could
> turn out really well.  OTOH, if we don't close on too many of those top
> prospects on the board we could be in trouble.
>
> A few reasons why Rivals rankings are actually important:
>
> 1) Over the past ten years, ZERO....count them ZERO teams have won a MNC
> without consistently finishing in the top 15 in recruiting for the 4 years
> before they won the title.  That's not an accident.
> 2) Of the players that move on to the next level, the highest success rate
> comes from 5 stars, the next highest from 4 stars, the next highest from 3,
> the next highest from 2....etc etc.  There are OBVIOUSLY misses and busts
> and 'hidden gems' etc, etc, but the overall numbers and averages prove out
> that they are NOT meaningless.
>
> --
> Skylar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: husker-bounces at tssi.com [mailto:husker-bounces at tssi.com] On Behalf Of
> Mike Jaixen
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 6:59 AM
> To: Steven; husker List
> Subject: Re: [Husker] Recruiting
>
> Rivals rankings are driven by quantity more than quality.  They add up the
> number of stars for each commit to determine the rank.  So it's better to
> have 3 commitments from 2-star players than a single five star player,
> according to the services.
>
> And that is how Bill Callahan's 2005 recruiting class ranked in the top
> five.  Anybody still believe that?  Anybody?
>
>
> Mike Jaixen
> http://huskermike.blogspot.com
> http://www.cornnation.com
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Steven <jfpgroup at suddenlink.net>
> To: husker List <husker at tssi.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 11:25 PM
> Subject: [Husker] Recruiting
>
> Why is Nebraska's recruiting class not even in the top 25 in the 2012
> rankings on the rivals site? Is it because we only have 9 recruits? Out of
> those about 4-5 are 4 star prospects.  If we are not even on the map and
> February rolls around this is not good. Please advise.  I wonder we are so
> far behind.
>
>
> Steven K
> Class of 1983
> Proud Member of the Oklahoma Cornhusker Club
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4105 - Release Date: 12/26/11
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4105 - Release Date: 12/26/11
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

"He's old enough to know what's right and young enough not to choose
it. He's strong enough to win the world and weak enough to lose it." -
Neal Peart