[Husker] Recruiting

[Skylar Dodds]

I would add too that I think Bo's a pretty good talent evaluator and (for the most part) I trust his judgment on players.  What concerns me is when we don't get enough of the first guys on his list and have to go to 2nd or 3rd or 4th option.

If a guy has been recruited by Bo for a while but is a 3-star, he's just fine in my book :)

On a side note, I believe Rex got his 4th star before signing day, but yes, early on he was a 3-star.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Landin [mailto:marklandin at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:44 AM
To: Skylar Dodds; Mike Jaixen; Steven; husker List
Subject: Re: [Husker] Recruiting

You never claimed it was exact, of course. my point was that people shouldn't fixate on "we missed that 5-star and got a 3-star instead".
While the overall quality of the class seems to correlate to overall team results (although that may in fact be biased in reverse ...
Athletes recruited by traditional powers who generally perform well often get higher ratings after their scholly offer is revealed), a class is typically not made or broken by one or two players, as grading individuals is often subjective and high star athletes can wash out of college. I know you know this ... Many others fall prey to the fallacy, though.

On 12/27/11, Skylar Dodds <sklarbodds at cox.net> wrote:
> If you can point to the part of my message where I said that it was 
> exact, I would appreciate it.  In fact, I would rather you re-read the 
> part where I said there are busts and there are 'diamonds in the rough'.
>
> Thanks.
>
> But of the overall trends, no MNCs for teams who don't do well in 
> rankings, highest percentage of 'successful' recruits coming from 5 
> stars, then 4 stars, then 3 stars, etc. etc.
>
> Basically, look at it this way (these numbers are 100% made up, but I 
> know that the principle is true):
>
> If you land a 5*, you have a 20% chance of him becoming an 
> all-conference player
> 4* that number drops to 10%
> 3* that number drops to 5%
> 2* that number drops to 2%
>
> And so on.  Those aren't the actual numbers (I don't have them or the 
> time to find them again, but I have seen them) but the actual numbers 
> DO mirror the star level.
>
> Make sense?  Again, I'm not saying recruiting rankings is everything, 
> not even close.  But to say it's nothing is just ignorant.
>
> --
> Skylar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Landin [mailto:marklandin at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 9:54 AM
> To: Skylar Dodds; Mike Jaixen; Steven; husker List
> Subject: Re: [Husker] Recruiting
>
> 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
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4106 - Release Date: 
> 12/27/11
>
>
>

--
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


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4106 - Release Date: 12/27/11