College Football '10 - Conference switching chaos!!

[David Floyd]

If Nebraska can pull off a miracle on Saturday against Texas, that could jump-start their program. Pelini has actually done a creditable job of bring back Nebraska, a Big 12 Title and trip to the BCS - win or lose - would solidify that.

Obviously, I'm rooting for Texas, and I'd again like to point out that my beginning of the season predictions of Texas and TCU winning out and going to the BCS are still, thus far, accurate

[SlowwHand]

Nebraska is another team that's always been crap. Didn't you see Drake's announcement?

[Drake Tungsten]

I really think Sloww might be dyslexic.

[SlowwHand]

Nebraska recruits have the opportunity to play against Texas and others. That's it. You said it.
The only thing you really got correct is that I suppose an analogy could be made with Nebraska and Notre Dame at the same time, but it would be the successes that both schools have had over the years.

[Drake Tungsten]

What the **** are you talking about? Good lord...

[SlowwHand]

Actually, you may be right. I think I did misread it.

[David Floyd]

Bifocals are, indeed, for winners

[Ming]

With all the comments about recruiting, I thought it would be worth going back and taking a look at just how some of the big schools have done, as well as ND and Nebraska.

The Data is from:

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&view=1&yr=2010

They provide data going back to 2002, so it was a reasonable source to use. While I'm sure there are sources that might disagree, it's good enough for discussion.

The number shown for each team per year reflects their recruiting rank for the year.


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
USC 12 1 1 6 1
TEXAS 1 14 10 13 3
OKLAHOMA 2 3 7 5 8
FLORIDA 20 4 8 11 2
MIAMI 4 6 3 12 14
OHIO STATE 3 25 11 7 13

NOTRE DAME 13 5 30 27 5
NEBRASKA 44 28 38 10 29

2007 2008 2009 2010 AVE
USC 2 9 9 15 6
TEXAS 3 16 7 2 8
OKLAHOMA 30 13 10 1 9
FLORIDA 1 12 21 7 10
MIAMI 13 3 24 14 10
OHIO STATE 16 4 1 21 11

NOTRE DAME 11 2 23 11 14
NEBRASKA 21 21 33 27 28


Not bad overall for the "Big Time" schools. They have all had some great years, and a few bad years to bring their average down.

Notre Dame matches up pretty well overall. They had a number 2 ranked class as early as 2008, and their 2010 looks Ok... still showing they can recruit even though they have sucked. I guess tradition and a good education can still work.

Nebraska on the other hand has had only a single top ten class since 2002, while Texas and Oklahoma continue to be the big winners in the Big 12. Nebraska isn't even close to being in the same league with the above big schools, and not even close to Notre Dame either.

[Drake Tungsten]

Anyone who puts much stock in the rankings produce by recruiting services doesn't really know anything about college football.

[Ming]

Anyone who puts much stock in the rankings produce by recruiting services doesn't really know anything about college football.

I guess you think it's just much better to make crap up... like you always do.

[Drake Tungsten]

Just to demonstrate how subjective the rankings are, Nebraska's 2005 class was ranked 10th by Scout, 6th by Allen Wallace of SuperPrep, 5th by Rivals and 1st by Tom Lemming of ESPN.com.

In the end, this class turned out to be nothing special, with Ndamukong Suh being the only star out of 30 recruits.

I guess you think it's just much better to make crap up...

Making crap up is exactly what the recruiting services do. It's no wonder you'd point to them as "evidence" of anything.

[Ming]

Gee... you seem to be doing the same thing.

But typical, when somebody disagrees with you, and shows some facts, your first response is to say the person doesn't know college football. Your second post was much better, actually discussing the topic instead of your typical knee jerk insult fest. But you had to actually do some research for that... and it added something to the discussion... unlike your first response.

No wonder why most people think you are a ****...

[DanS]

I think those numbers are more or less indicative of the talent that is coming in the door.

One thing to keep in mind is that those rankings are based on signed recruits rather than enrolled recruits. F.e., based on enrolled recruits, ND had the #1 class in 2008. This after putting up a 3-9 record. That's awesome recruiting.

There's nothing magic going on. It has always been the case that bad coaches can't make stud recruits play well. That's why these big time programs have long spells of sub-par performance and then all of the sudden are back on top. I know that it has happened several times at ND. The program was written off after the 1963 season in similar fashion to today. The same old reasons were trotted out too (except for the conference thing, which is a new reason).

ND probably will never be as good as in the good old days. But that's not saying much, when the two best college coaches were at the school.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think those numbers are more or less indicative of the talent that is coming in the door.

I disagree. The rankings are based on the subjective opinion of the recruiting services and the amount of recruiting interest a player is generating. This is surely some correlation between this ranking and actual "talent", but I remain unconvinced that this correlation is high enough to justify any serious use of recruiting service rankings as a proxy for talent.

You'll note that coaches (whose jobs depend on successfully finding and signing talent) don't rely on the recruiting services for anything.

But typical, when somebody disagrees with you, and shows some facts

Subjective opinions aren't facts, you ****. Go back to watching the Bears lose and leave the college football discussions to those of us who actually know what we're talking about.

[Ming]

Again.. a typical response from you.. insults and more insults.
Real mature on your part.