(09-18-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:22 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 07:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  My issue has always been how does picking up schools in more populous regions help others with CFB recruiting? Adding UMD and Rutgers is great for the BTN, but isn't going to help NU, Minny or Iowa improve in football. Pitt and 'Cuse in the ACC won't help them pull Florida or southern recruits any better than when both schools were in the BEast with U of Miami. What we really might be witnessing is the foundation of youth football slowly eroding.

I think that there are a number of ways that can have an impact. First and foremost, if the BTN can generate even more money by moving into well populated areas, the additional revenue can be pumped into facilities and coaching hires. The SEC may be the premier conference and it may have more abundant places a coach can succeed than other conferences, but there's still a finite number of positions available there, and places like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska still have a lot of traditional appeal and more importantly, lots of resources and fans. If you add a high salary (both for the head coach as well as assistants) that can make them very attractive destinations, and that money can also help build fancy new athletic dorms, even bigger and more state-of-the-art weight facilities, and better indoor training/practice facilities (handy and attractive to recruits for schools in northern climes).

Secondly, it does expand the recruiting footprint, and even if those areas aren't as talent rich as Texas, Florida, or Georgia, it still broadens the pool, and since there are many well-heeled B1G alumni living in those areas it means that there are probably a lot of "ambassadors" in those regions who would be willing to promote (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) B1G schools.

Third, adding two programs that aren't traditional powers makes it less likely that they'll be competing with the likes of OSU/MU/PSU/NU for the top spot in the conference, and they pose less of a threat to the likes of Michigan State and Wisconsin as well.

Given that the B1G does still need an influx of football cache (which was probably the biggest reason Nebraska was picked over Missouri), any future expansion would probably need to include a traditional football power if at all possible. That's one reason that many still posit the notion of a KU/OU pairing, as it would boost the B1G in each of the two major sports with a "name brand".

Phog, recruiting base is like a good supply of oxygen. The fewer the recruits the thinner the air. The thinner the air the harder it is to win. My point being if there are only a handful of 4 and 5 star recruits in Maryland and New Jersey and all of them go to Big 10 schools (as long as it is not the same school) it won't make a bit of difference to the overall disparity.

And the point where OU is concerned is that they have already witnessed what has happened when a football brand moves to a recruiting thin conference. Nebraska's brand has taken a hit. They have been effectively cut off from any Texas recruiting base and OU knows that. What has the PAC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base. What has the SEC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and a history of NFL draftees. What has the ACC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and the 2nd highest number of NFL draftees. In the end this is going to have a large sway over where the Sooners go. And in reality the Big 10 is the worst possible destination for their athletics.

Now for Kansas it is a whole different matter. Basketball will never suffer in the Big 10.

Can you please stop lying to people? Norman, Oklahoma is like two and a half hours DRIVE from DFW. Oklahoma will NEVER not be able to strongly recruit Texas. Look at an Oklahoma roster. There are a lot of Texas guys there but it is a National roster and it is not dominated by Texas guys. They recruit nationally because that is how damn good their program is. It wont matter what Major conference they decide to be part of in the future.

It is a logical fallacy to try to claim that OU in Norman, Oklahoma would be affected the same as NU was in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Nebraska's recruiting faltered BEFORE leaving The Big 12. You guys are just making all this up for what? There is nothing to win in these discussions so what is the point in recreating the truth into something not so truthful?

In regards to a previous post, Nebraska and Missouri will never rejoin the Big XII. That is the most ludicrous thing ever posted here. Secondly, Nebraska has taken a hit since joining the B1G. Maybe they were fading, but now they are falling off the cliff.

(09-18-2014 09:07 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:22 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 07:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  My issue has always been how does picking up schools in more populous regions help others with CFB recruiting? Adding UMD and Rutgers is great for the BTN, but isn't going to help NU, Minny or Iowa improve in football. Pitt and 'Cuse in the ACC won't help them pull Florida or southern recruits any better than when both schools were in the BEast with U of Miami. What we really might be witnessing is the foundation of youth football slowly eroding.

I think that there are a number of ways that can have an impact. First and foremost, if the BTN can generate even more money by moving into well populated areas, the additional revenue can be pumped into facilities and coaching hires. The SEC may be the premier conference and it may have more abundant places a coach can succeed than other conferences, but there's still a finite number of positions available there, and places like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska still have a lot of traditional appeal and more importantly, lots of resources and fans. If you add a high salary (both for the head coach as well as assistants) that can make them very attractive destinations, and that money can also help build fancy new athletic dorms, even bigger and more state-of-the-art weight facilities, and better indoor training/practice facilities (handy and attractive to recruits for schools in northern climes).

Secondly, it does expand the recruiting footprint, and even if those areas aren't as talent rich as Texas, Florida, or Georgia, it still broadens the pool, and since there are many well-heeled B1G alumni living in those areas it means that there are probably a lot of "ambassadors" in those regions who would be willing to promote (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) B1G schools.

Third, adding two programs that aren't traditional powers makes it less likely that they'll be competing with the likes of OSU/MU/PSU/NU for the top spot in the conference, and they pose less of a threat to the likes of Michigan State and Wisconsin as well.

Given that the B1G does still need an influx of football cache (which was probably the biggest reason Nebraska was picked over Missouri), any future expansion would probably need to include a traditional football power if at all possible. That's one reason that many still posit the notion of a KU/OU pairing, as it would boost the B1G in each of the two major sports with a "name brand".

Phog, recruiting base is like a good supply of oxygen. The fewer the recruits the thinner the air. The thinner the air the harder it is to win. My point being if there are only a handful of 4 and 5 star recruits in Maryland and New Jersey and all of them go to Big 10 schools (as long as it is not the same school) it won't make a bit of difference to the overall disparity.

And the point where OU is concerned is that they have already witnessed what has happened when a football brand moves to a recruiting thin conference. Nebraska's brand has taken a hit. They have been effectively cut off from any Texas recruiting base and OU knows that. What has the PAC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base. What has the SEC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and a history of NFL draftees. What has the ACC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and the 2nd highest number of NFL draftees. In the end this is going to have a large sway over where the Sooners go. And in reality the Big 10 is the worst possible destination for their athletics.

Now for Kansas it is a whole different matter. Basketball will never suffer in the Big 10.

Can you please stop lying to people? Norman, Oklahoma is like two and a half hours DRIVE from DFW. Oklahoma will NEVER not be able to strongly recruit Texas. Look at an Oklahoma roster. There are a lot of Texas guys there but it is a National roster and it is not dominated by Texas guys. They recruit nationally because that is how damn good their program is. It wont matter what Major conference they decide to be part of in the future.

It is a logical fallacy to try to claim that OU in Norman, Oklahoma would be affected the same as NU was in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Nebraska's recruiting faltered BEFORE leaving The Big 12. You guys are just making all this up for what? There is nothing to win in these discussions so what is the point in recreating the truth into something not so truthful?

In regards to a previous post, Nebraska and Missouri will never rejoin the Big XII. That is the most ludicrous thing ever posted here. Secondly, Nebraska has taken a hit since joining the B1G. Maybe they were fading, but now they are falling off the cliff.

Nice wording but falling off a cliff? Really? That is just silly.

They need to fire their dumpster fire of a head coach. They do that and their brand, their fan following and their facilities will get them back to where they were.

Even when you are trying to take things back to a sensible place...you couldn't help but exaggerate. They could easily turn it around, you cant turn around falling off a cliff.

(09-18-2014 04:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  Jr, are you sowing the seeds of reverse realignment?
For the right price could the Big 12 entice Nebraska and Missouri to rejoin the league. Would ESPN/FOX again pony up to grow the Big 12 instead of tearing it apart.
Merge the 12 team Big 12 and the 12 team PAC? That's one heck of a 24 team conference. The PAC would have to give up control of their network, but there is real money to be made here.

That ship as sailed; however, NU in a ten school B12 would have been great for them. If the B1G had taken MU instead, NU would have had OU back as an annual game and UT added (lot of bad blood). Two games in TX each year and a game in OK. That would have been the best shot for NU to get back to the 70-90s Huskers level. However, they were affected by several things before they left the B12 IMO:

1) No more partial qualifiers. NU used to get a lot of great skill players by taking flyers on low academic performers in the Big 8. It could not do that in the B12.
2) NU was way ahead of the game on S&C. By the late 90s most major college football teams had well-run S&C programs that eliminated that advantage.
3) They used to run an awesome walk on program that used #2 to turn out a lot of future starters, especially lineman. Many of these were NE HS kids that needed the extra time to develop. They really did not do well with this once Solich was let go. I think Callahan gutted it. Like #2 it was way ahead of the game at the time.
4) The change from a running team to a more balanced team hurt them. They used to get their pick (along with OU and the wishbone) of great option QBs and running backs because 80% of the time or more they would run the ball and few others ran such run dominate offenses. Those option QBs would go there to play QB rather than move to another position at other programs. When they went to a more balanced attack, they had much more recruiting competition for passing QBs and other skill players needed to run a solid passing offense.
5) Scholarship reduction to 85 helped the other B12 north schools even the talent level a little, especially KSU and MU. NU (and OU too) used to cherry pick a lot of great players from CO, IA, MO, and KS, and even if they never played it kept them from playing for their rivals.
6) They had 2 legendary coaches, Devaney and Osborne, in a row and they kept the program at the top of college FB for nearly 4 decades. Those types of coaches don't grow on trees and the coaches since have been solid for the most part, but far from legendary.

As far as the talent that NU brings in, this article (BR but a good article), shows that though there has been some drop off from the Osborne years it has not been drastic. They went from an average class ranking of 15 under Osborne to around 20ish. So not a huge fall off. Under Pelini it has been 24th, so maybe their recruiting dropped off some due to the B1G move (19 to 24) or maybe Pelini is not as good a recruiter as Callahan and Solich. We'll know more, once they have a another coach or two, if it is a B1G or coach recruiting issue. The quote:

Tom Osborne (11 classes, 29 data points): 14.90

Frank Solich: (6 classes, 27 data points): 20.19

Bill Callahan: (4 classes, 24 data points): 18.00

Bo Pelini: (5 classes, 19 data points): 23.89

Maybe they just need a great coach again.

It doesn't even Have to be recruiting. As you say, their recruiting rankings are just fine. It is a Coach issue, period. Folks around here want to paint it as a recruiting thing in order to "win the debate" but it is simply untrue.

Pelini has to go.

Oklahoma's situation is not the same as Nebraska's. Hell, they aren't even painting the Nebraska situation in the proper light but even if they were...the situations are not the same.

(09-18-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:22 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 07:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  My issue has always been how does picking up schools in more populous regions help others with CFB recruiting? Adding UMD and Rutgers is great for the BTN, but isn't going to help NU, Minny or Iowa improve in football. Pitt and 'Cuse in the ACC won't help them pull Florida or southern recruits any better than when both schools were in the BEast with U of Miami. What we really might be witnessing is the foundation of youth football slowly eroding.

I think that there are a number of ways that can have an impact. First and foremost, if the BTN can generate even more money by moving into well populated areas, the additional revenue can be pumped into facilities and coaching hires. The SEC may be the premier conference and it may have more abundant places a coach can succeed than other conferences, but there's still a finite number of positions available there, and places like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska still have a lot of traditional appeal and more importantly, lots of resources and fans. If you add a high salary (both for the head coach as well as assistants) that can make them very attractive destinations, and that money can also help build fancy new athletic dorms, even bigger and more state-of-the-art weight facilities, and better indoor training/practice facilities (handy and attractive to recruits for schools in northern climes).

Secondly, it does expand the recruiting footprint, and even if those areas aren't as talent rich as Texas, Florida, or Georgia, it still broadens the pool, and since there are many well-heeled B1G alumni living in those areas it means that there are probably a lot of "ambassadors" in those regions who would be willing to promote (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) B1G schools.

Third, adding two programs that aren't traditional powers makes it less likely that they'll be competing with the likes of OSU/MU/PSU/NU for the top spot in the conference, and they pose less of a threat to the likes of Michigan State and Wisconsin as well.

Given that the B1G does still need an influx of football cache (which was probably the biggest reason Nebraska was picked over Missouri), any future expansion would probably need to include a traditional football power if at all possible. That's one reason that many still posit the notion of a KU/OU pairing, as it would boost the B1G in each of the two major sports with a "name brand".

Phog, recruiting base is like a good supply of oxygen. The fewer the recruits the thinner the air. The thinner the air the harder it is to win. My point being if there are only a handful of 4 and 5 star recruits in Maryland and New Jersey and all of them go to Big 10 schools (as long as it is not the same school) it won't make a bit of difference to the overall disparity.

And the point where OU is concerned is that they have already witnessed what has happened when a football brand moves to a recruiting thin conference. Nebraska's brand has taken a hit. They have been effectively cut off from any Texas recruiting base and OU knows that. What has the PAC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base. What has the SEC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and a history of NFL draftees. What has the ACC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and the 2nd highest number of NFL draftees. In the end this is going to have a large sway over where the Sooners go. And in reality the Big 10 is the worst possible destination for their athletics.

Now for Kansas it is a whole different matter. Basketball will never suffer in the Big 10.

Can you please stop lying to people? Norman, Oklahoma is like two and a half hours DRIVE from DFW. Oklahoma will NEVER not be able to strongly recruit Texas. Look at an Oklahoma roster. There are a lot of Texas guys there but it is a National roster and it is not dominated by Texas guys. They recruit nationally because that is how damn good their program is. It wont matter what Major conference they decide to be part of in the future.

It is a logical fallacy to try to claim that OU in Norman, Oklahoma would be affected the same as NU was in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Nebraska's recruiting faltered BEFORE leaving The Big 12. You guys are just making all this up for what? There is nothing to win in these discussions so what is the point in recreating the truth into something not so truthful?

OU has maintained a high level of performance since WWII. They recruited TX fine when they were in the Big 8. They will always recruit it pretty well. Would Alabama would stop getting FL players if they went to the B12 or B1G? No. Just think of the state of OK as North Texas and you will better understand how close the ties are there. So many people from OK and TX work together and go back and forth working in the energy industry, especially Oklahomans relocating to Texas for work. OK as a state plays FB at a high level (10th per capita in FBS signees, TX is 8th) as well. NU never brought in the type of classes OU consistently did because they were not located next to a recruiting hotbed.

OU does recruit nationally very well and that is unlikely to change. Comparing them is not the same. OU has been putting a lot of effort into CA lately and has been signing big-time players (like Mixon) from there. If they end up in the PAC, especially with some Texas schools (almost certain in a PAC move), they might actually have better recruiting than they do now due to more CA exposure. Same with the SEC due to more FL, GA, and LA exposure. They have 10 guys from the SEC states. I think in the B1G they would recruit similarly to how they do in the B12. Based on this:

Breaking down their 2014 squad (eyeball counting), their recruits came from:

40% TX
17% OK
10% CA
12% SEC states (minus TX)
5% B1G states
5% PAC states (minus CA)
5% ACC states

By footprint, excluding the B12, OU recruits come from:

SEC including TX 52%
PAC 15%
SEC minus TX 12%
B1G 5%
ACC 5%
ACC minus shared SEC states 0%

(09-18-2014 10:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 09:07 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 06:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:22 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that there are a number of ways that can have an impact. First and foremost, if the BTN can generate even more money by moving into well populated areas, the additional revenue can be pumped into facilities and coaching hires. The SEC may be the premier conference and it may have more abundant places a coach can succeed than other conferences, but there's still a finite number of positions available there, and places like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska still have a lot of traditional appeal and more importantly, lots of resources and fans. If you add a high salary (both for the head coach as well as assistants) that can make them very attractive destinations, and that money can also help build fancy new athletic dorms, even bigger and more state-of-the-art weight facilities, and better indoor training/practice facilities (handy and attractive to recruits for schools in northern climes).

Secondly, it does expand the recruiting footprint, and even if those areas aren't as talent rich as Texas, Florida, or Georgia, it still broadens the pool, and since there are many well-heeled B1G alumni living in those areas it means that there are probably a lot of "ambassadors" in those regions who would be willing to promote (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) B1G schools.

Third, adding two programs that aren't traditional powers makes it less likely that they'll be competing with the likes of OSU/MU/PSU/NU for the top spot in the conference, and they pose less of a threat to the likes of Michigan State and Wisconsin as well.

Given that the B1G does still need an influx of football cache (which was probably the biggest reason Nebraska was picked over Missouri), any future expansion would probably need to include a traditional football power if at all possible. That's one reason that many still posit the notion of a KU/OU pairing, as it would boost the B1G in each of the two major sports with a "name brand".

Phog, recruiting base is like a good supply of oxygen. The fewer the recruits the thinner the air. The thinner the air the harder it is to win. My point being if there are only a handful of 4 and 5 star recruits in Maryland and New Jersey and all of them go to Big 10 schools (as long as it is not the same school) it won't make a bit of difference to the overall disparity.

And the point where OU is concerned is that they have already witnessed what has happened when a football brand moves to a recruiting thin conference. Nebraska's brand has taken a hit. They have been effectively cut off from any Texas recruiting base and OU knows that. What has the PAC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base. What has the SEC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and a history of NFL draftees. What has the ACC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and the 2nd highest number of NFL draftees. In the end this is going to have a large sway over where the Sooners go. And in reality the Big 10 is the worst possible destination for their athletics.

Now for Kansas it is a whole different matter. Basketball will never suffer in the Big 10.

Can you please stop lying to people? Norman, Oklahoma is like two and a half hours DRIVE from DFW. Oklahoma will NEVER not be able to strongly recruit Texas. Look at an Oklahoma roster. There are a lot of Texas guys there but it is a National roster and it is not dominated by Texas guys. They recruit nationally because that is how damn good their program is. It wont matter what Major conference they decide to be part of in the future.

It is a logical fallacy to try to claim that OU in Norman, Oklahoma would be affected the same as NU was in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Nebraska's recruiting faltered BEFORE leaving The Big 12. You guys are just making all this up for what? There is nothing to win in these discussions so what is the point in recreating the truth into something not so truthful?

In regards to a previous post, Nebraska and Missouri will never rejoin the Big XII. That is the most ludicrous thing ever posted here. Secondly, Nebraska has taken a hit since joining the B1G. Maybe they were fading, but now they are falling off the cliff.

Nice wording but falling off a cliff? Really? That is just silly.

They need to fire their dumpster fire of a head coach. They do that and their brand, their fan following and their facilities will get them back to where they were.

Even when you are trying to take things back to a sensible place...you couldn't help but exaggerate. They could easily turn it around, you cant turn around falling off a cliff.

True regarding the head coach... as far as the cliff maybe that was extreme, but they are in trouble. The old Nebraska that I knew would dominate the B1G. Guess we will see...

(09-18-2014 11:23 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  Jr, are you sowing the seeds of reverse realignment?
For the right price could the Big 12 entice Nebraska and Missouri to rejoin the league. Would ESPN/FOX again pony up to grow the Big 12 instead of tearing it apart.
Merge the 12 team Big 12 and the 12 team PAC? That's one heck of a 24 team conference. The PAC would have to give up control of their network, but there is real money to be made here.

That ship as sailed; however, NU in a ten school B12 would have been great for them. If the B1G had taken MU instead, NU would have had OU back as an annual game and UT added (lot of bad blood). Two games in TX each year and a game in OK. That would have been the best shot for NU to get back to the 70-90s Huskers level. However, they were affected by several things before they left the B12 IMO:

1) No more partial qualifiers. NU used to get a lot of great skill players by taking flyers on low academic performers in the Big 8. It could not do that in the B12.
2) NU was way ahead of the game on S&C. By the late 90s most major college football teams had well-run S&C programs that eliminated that advantage.
3) They used to run an awesome walk on program that used #2 to turn out a lot of future starters, especially lineman. Many of these were NE HS kids that needed the extra time to develop. They really did not do well with this once Solich was let go. I think Callahan gutted it. Like #2 it was way ahead of the game at the time.
4) The change from a running team to a more balanced team hurt them. They used to get their pick (along with OU and the wishbone) of great option QBs and running backs because 80% of the time or more they would run the ball and few others ran such run dominate offenses. Those option QBs would go there to play QB rather than move to another position at other programs. When they went to a more balanced attack, they had much more recruiting competition for passing QBs and other skill players needed to run a solid passing offense.
5) Scholarship reduction to 85 helped the other B12 north schools even the talent level a little, especially KSU and MU. NU (and OU too) used to cherry pick a lot of great players from CO, IA, MO, and KS, and even if they never played it kept them from playing for their rivals.
6) They had 2 legendary coaches, Devaney and Osborne, in a row and they kept the program at the top of college FB for nearly 4 decades. Those types of coaches don't grow on trees and the coaches since have been solid for the most part, but far from legendary.

As far as the talent that NU brings in, this article (BR but a good article), shows that though there has been some drop off from the Osborne years it has not been drastic. They went from an average class ranking of 15 under Osborne to around 20ish. So not a huge fall off. Under Pelini it has been 24th, so maybe their recruiting dropped off some due to the B1G move (19 to 24) or maybe Pelini is not as good a recruiter as Callahan and Solich. We'll know more, once they have a another coach or two, if it is a B1G or coach recruiting issue. The quote:

Tom Osborne (11 classes, 29 data points): 14.90

Frank Solich: (6 classes, 27 data points): 20.19

Bill Callahan: (4 classes, 24 data points): 18.00

Bo Pelini: (5 classes, 19 data points): 23.89

Maybe they just need a great coach again.

I think you've done a good job of summarizing the factors that helped Nebraska sustain their program over a long period of time. When you don't have a great home recruiting base you have to do other things well, and Nebraska's work in the areas of partial qualifiers, S&C, etc. were definitely big factors in their success. I think that we're also seeing a faster turnover in terms of what programs are attractive to prospects - having a big traditional name is still an asset, but probably less of one than it once was. You also see cultural factors come into play - for instance, Miami was THE destination for many African-American recruits in the late 80s and 90s, and now Oregon (with their ties to Nike and their flashy uniforms) is a much hotter commodity than they once were.

(09-19-2014 09:56 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 11:23 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 04:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  Jr, are you sowing the seeds of reverse realignment?
For the right price could the Big 12 entice Nebraska and Missouri to rejoin the league. Would ESPN/FOX again pony up to grow the Big 12 instead of tearing it apart.
Merge the 12 team Big 12 and the 12 team PAC? That's one heck of a 24 team conference. The PAC would have to give up control of their network, but there is real money to be made here.

That ship as sailed; however, NU in a ten school B12 would have been great for them. If the B1G had taken MU instead, NU would have had OU back as an annual game and UT added (lot of bad blood). Two games in TX each year and a game in OK. That would have been the best shot for NU to get back to the 70-90s Huskers level. However, they were affected by several things before they left the B12 IMO:

1) No more partial qualifiers. NU used to get a lot of great skill players by taking flyers on low academic performers in the Big 8. It could not do that in the B12.
2) NU was way ahead of the game on S&C. By the late 90s most major college football teams had well-run S&C programs that eliminated that advantage.
3) They used to run an awesome walk on program that used #2 to turn out a lot of future starters, especially lineman. Many of these were NE HS kids that needed the extra time to develop. They really did not do well with this once Solich was let go. I think Callahan gutted it. Like #2 it was way ahead of the game at the time.
4) The change from a running team to a more balanced team hurt them. They used to get their pick (along with OU and the wishbone) of great option QBs and running backs because 80% of the time or more they would run the ball and few others ran such run dominate offenses. Those option QBs would go there to play QB rather than move to another position at other programs. When they went to a more balanced attack, they had much more recruiting competition for passing QBs and other skill players needed to run a solid passing offense.
5) Scholarship reduction to 85 helped the other B12 north schools even the talent level a little, especially KSU and MU. NU (and OU too) used to cherry pick a lot of great players from CO, IA, MO, and KS, and even if they never played it kept them from playing for their rivals.
6) They had 2 legendary coaches, Devaney and Osborne, in a row and they kept the program at the top of college FB for nearly 4 decades. Those types of coaches don't grow on trees and the coaches since have been solid for the most part, but far from legendary.

As far as the talent that NU brings in, this article (BR but a good article), shows that though there has been some drop off from the Osborne years it has not been drastic. They went from an average class ranking of 15 under Osborne to around 20ish. So not a huge fall off. Under Pelini it has been 24th, so maybe their recruiting dropped off some due to the B1G move (19 to 24) or maybe Pelini is not as good a recruiter as Callahan and Solich. We'll know more, once they have a another coach or two, if it is a B1G or coach recruiting issue. The quote:

Tom Osborne (11 classes, 29 data points): 14.90

Frank Solich: (6 classes, 27 data points): 20.19

Bill Callahan: (4 classes, 24 data points): 18.00

Bo Pelini: (5 classes, 19 data points): 23.89

Maybe they just need a great coach again.

I think you've done a good job of summarizing the factors that helped Nebraska sustain their program over a long period of time. When you don't have a great home recruiting base you have to do other things well, and Nebraska's work in the areas of partial qualifiers, S&C, etc. were definitely big factors in their success. I think that we're also seeing a faster turnover in terms of what programs are attractive to prospects - having a big traditional name is still an asset, but probably less of one than it once was. You also see cultural factors come into play - for instance, Miami was THE destination for many African-American recruits in the late 80s and 90s, and now Oregon (with their ties to Nike and their flashy uniforms) is a much hotter commodity than they once were.

I think they follow the coaches who will utilize their abilities the best, and go to schools where they can play right away. Those kids are smart enough to know that if they aren't with a program that gets noticed they won't get noticed as easily. They know that if they go to a program with few gifted athletes that the likelihood of getting injured due to overuse goes up. They know which coaches specialize in teaching which skills and they match that to what they desire to develop to optimize their chances at a professional contract. Recruiting is not so much a talent grab these days as a sifting of the needs of the players to the needs of the schools to the tools of the coaches to find a match. I think it is much more complex than it once was. I also totally believe that college coaches are the work horses of training these days because so many kids coming out of high school lack fundamental training position by position.

JRSec has a point. Whenever I see a game I get amazed at players making boneheaded plays, such as not wrapping his arms around another player to tackle him or hitting the quarterback as he's going out of bounds. I really hate penalties costing the team too many games. I'd rather lose 49-0. At least I know my team got beat fair and square.

Do colleges really have to teach football these days? I guess it explains why good academic schools other than Stanford struggle these days.

I have to disagree.
The North Carolina coaches clinic in Greensboro continues to grow year after year. More and more high school coaches continue to come to learn more about their profession. Better coaches produce better players.
The local college coaches have been very generous with their time to help elevate the level of expertise of all of the high school coaches that attend.
Recently David Cutcliffe spent almost two hours explaining the first two steps the quarterback takes when he drops back to pass. TWO HOURS for two steps.
The level of high school football in North Carolina continues to improve because the coaching continues to improve thanks to the North Carolina coaches clinic.

(09-19-2014 08:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have to disagree.
The North Carolina coaches clinic in Greensboro continues to grow year after year. More and more high school coaches continue to come to learn more about their profession. Better coaches produce better players.
The local college coaches have been very generous with their time to help elevate the level of expertise of all of the high school coaches that attend.
Recently David Cutcliffe spent almost two hours explaining the first two steps the quarterback takes when he drops back to pass. TWO HOURS for two steps.
The level of high school football in North Carolina continues to improve because the coaching continues to improve thanks to the North Carolina coaches clinic.

Gee, that explains perfectly the high level of performance of North Carolina Universities on the gridiron (ECU excepted).

BTW XLance you prove my point. Cutcliffe wouldn't be holding the camps if there wasn't a need. High School coaches taught the two and three step drop and the roll out as a staple of Spring practice way back in the 50's and 60's. Footwork is essential to balance and delivery. They taught the proper fingering of the laces and of the position and fluidity of the passing motion, and of the lateral, and of handing off and faking hand offs. Tim Tebow's naturally wrong motion would have been corrected before he ever reached the U of F. All things you don't see in high school today.

Kids from my era never intercepted a long 4th down pass, as we were taught to bat it down so that we took the ball over at the opponents line of scrimmage instead of deep on our side of the 50. We were taught the techniques to pass blocking and run blocking and when to use a hip, the hands, or the crab technique. We were taught never to use the head in tackling as it led to neck injuries. As a matter of fact I learned a lot of that in pee wee ball before ever moving up to Jr. High and High School.

I attend High School games in our area, 6A and now 7A games. There is little to no footwork in the secondary. Running a decent pass route with deception is rare. The best, biggest, and fastest athletes are on offense and the offense is usually the spread. High scoring affairs with little defense is quite the norm. Since players are lacking fundamentals when they get to high school and those schools lack the budget for great assistant coaches, usually the Head Coach spends his time with the few stars and actual athletes he has. Warm bodies are placed on the D and away we go. It's a lot like what Auburn does now. The lack of defense last year cost our high powered all the studs on offense system the national championship. This year's defense is a bit better, but just a bit.

The truth is the coaches, even at the P5 level, are overwhelmed with hulking kids with little discipline, below average academic training, the attention span of a gnat, and the overwhelming desire to be a pro or a rap star and are not sure which. Just look at Johnny football and multiply him times half the roster (except for the natural abilities) and that about sums it up.

The only kids coming out of high school with great fundamentals are middle class children whose parent's can afford summer league ball and pay for the individual coaching to make their kids look sharp to college coaches. That works for women's soccer, I'm sure lacrosse, golf, tennis, equestrian, baseball, gymnastics, wrestling, and to a certain extent for swimming, but not for basketball (the interest is too low) and football (where size and speed matter). The result is what we are witnessing. Spread offenses, less defense (of course rule changes have hurt defensive ball at the college level as well) and higher scoring contests (which may be a good thing for the computer game light em up crowd). So enjoy Les Miles, Nick Saban, and other adherent's of the Pro Style attack and solid defense. They are being overwhelmed by fast receivers, no bumps or hands past the line of scrimmage on coverage, uncalled pick plays by receivers, liberal holding by the offensive line, and the up tempo wear out the big guys on defense style of play.

Malzahn and Briles succeed because they find the time to teach fundamentals and techniques and recognized early on the shift in mentality and talent coming out of the nation's high schools. And what makes those two particularly good is that teach the conditioning and fundamentals necessary to run a spread. Those skills are different from beef up front war in the trenches X's and O's.

The B1G could schedule more games with Missouri!

Just kidding Medic - after all, it's likely that this will be the only week all season where KU will have won while Missouri lost, particularly in a game they should have won.

JR brings up a lot of good points, including my personal pet peeve about the pick plays. I know that the powers-that-be want more offense, but that one really sticks in my craw for some reason. As for fundamentals, my nephew is a high school assistant coach in his mid-20s, and he also bemoans the lack of discipline and fundamentals. He's still young enough that his opinion can't be dismissed by skeptics as coming from an "old man yelling at kids to get off my lawn", which seems to happen all too often when anybody over 30 ventures an opinion on the internet.

(09-22-2014 09:21 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  The B1G could schedule more games with Missouri!

Just kidding Medic - after all, it's likely that this will be the only week all season where KU will have won while Missouri lost, particularly in a game they should have won.

JR brings up a lot of good points, including my personal pet peeve about the pick plays. I know that the powers-that-be want more offense, but that one really sticks in my craw for some reason. As for fundamentals, my nephew is a high school assistant coach in his mid-20s, and he also bemoans the lack of discipline and fundamentals. He's still young enough that his opinion can't be dismissed by skeptics as coming from an "old man yelling at kids to get off my lawn", which seems to happen all too often when anybody over 30 ventures an opinion on the internet.

True, BTP. Polls and opinions mean nothing. That is why they do it on the field. IU had an awesome game plan and revenge on their mind. That loss was probably a positive for Missouri. They seemed to be getting a little full of themselves..... Missouri at least only scheduled one FCS school this year and that was North Dakota State, which is a great football team.

(09-22-2014 12:34 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 09:21 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  The B1G could schedule more games with Missouri!

Just kidding Medic - after all, it's likely that this will be the only week all season where KU will have won while Missouri lost, particularly in a game they should have won.

JR brings up a lot of good points, including my personal pet peeve about the pick plays. I know that the powers-that-be want more offense, but that one really sticks in my craw for some reason. As for fundamentals, my nephew is a high school assistant coach in his mid-20s, and he also bemoans the lack of discipline and fundamentals. He's still young enough that his opinion can't be dismissed by skeptics as coming from an "old man yelling at kids to get off my lawn", which seems to happen all too often when anybody over 30 ventures an opinion on the internet.

True, BTP. Polls and opinions mean nothing. That is why they do it on the field. IU had an awesome game plan and revenge on their mind. That loss was probably a positive for Missouri. They seemed to be getting a little full of themselves..... Missouri at least only scheduled one FCS school this year and that was North Dakota State, which is a great football team.

It's somewhat of a cliché at times to declare a loss to be a positive thing, but I think you may be right in this case. Missouri had a fine season last year to build on and they may have gotten a little complacent. I'm obviously a bit removed, but it seems like a few years ago there was a bit of restlessness about Pinkel although the program hadn't slipped. I think it's a good thing for Missouri that he's still there. Don James' protégés are proving that he was clearly a good mentor.

Missouri believed the propaganda. It is that simple. You can say that it was good for the team as if saying that is a band aid. Propaganda is good for the masses but when players begin believing it, then the Coaches aren't doing their job.

(09-22-2014 07:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Missouri believed the propaganda. It is that simple. You can say that it was good for the team as if saying that is a band aid. Propaganda is good for the masses but when players begin believing it, then the Coaches aren't doing their job.

It is positive in that it happened early and was an OOC loss. Not sure Pinkel had many positive comments for the team after the game. They embarrassed themselves before a sell out crowd. It will wake them up hopefully.

(09-23-2014 11:33 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 07:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Missouri believed the propaganda. It is that simple. You can say that it was good for the team as if saying that is a band aid. Propaganda is good for the masses but when players begin believing it, then the Coaches aren't doing their job.

It is positive in that it happened early and was an OOC loss. Not sure Pinkel had many positive comments for the team after the game. They embarrassed themselves before a sell out crowd. It will wake them up hopefully.

I would be a little worried if I was South Carolina.

(09-20-2014 03:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 08:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  I have to disagree.
The North Carolina coaches clinic in Greensboro continues to grow year after year. More and more high school coaches continue to come to learn more about their profession. Better coaches produce better players.
The local college coaches have been very generous with their time to help elevate the level of expertise of all of the high school coaches that attend.
Recently David Cutcliffe spent almost two hours explaining the first two steps the quarterback takes when he drops back to pass. TWO HOURS for two steps.
The level of high school football in North Carolina continues to improve because the coaching continues to improve thanks to the North Carolina coaches clinic.

Gee, that explains perfectly the high level of performance of North Carolina Universities on the gridiron (ECU excepted).

BTW XLance you prove my point. Cutcliffe wouldn't be holding the camps if there wasn't a need. High School coaches taught the two and three step drop and the roll out as a staple of Spring practice way back in the 50's and 60's. Footwork is essential to balance and delivery. They taught the proper fingering of the laces and of the position and fluidity of the passing motion, and of the lateral, and of handing off and faking hand offs. Tim Tebow's naturally wrong motion would have been corrected before he ever reached the U of F. All things you don't see in high school today.

Kids from my era never intercepted a long 4th down pass, as we were taught to bat it down so that we took the ball over at the opponents line of scrimmage instead of deep on our side of the 50. We were taught the techniques to pass blocking and run blocking and when to use a hip, the hands, or the crab technique. We were taught never to use the head in tackling as it led to neck injuries. As a matter of fact I learned a lot of that in pee wee ball before ever moving up to Jr. High and High School.

I attend High School games in our area, 6A and now 7A games. There is little to no footwork in the secondary. Running a decent pass route with deception is rare. The best, biggest, and fastest athletes are on offense and the offense is usually the spread. High scoring affairs with little defense is quite the norm. Since players are lacking fundamentals when they get to high school and those schools lack the budget for great assistant coaches, usually the Head Coach spends his time with the few stars and actual athletes he has. Warm bodies are placed on the D and away we go. It's a lot like what Auburn does now. The lack of defense last year cost our high powered all the studs on offense system the national championship. This year's defense is a bit better, but just a bit.

The truth is the coaches, even at the P5 level, are overwhelmed with hulking kids with little discipline, below average academic training, the attention span of a gnat, and the overwhelming desire to be a pro or a rap star and are not sure which. Just look at Johnny football and multiply him times half the roster (except for the natural abilities) and that about sums it up.

The only kids coming out of high school with great fundamentals are middle class children whose parent's can afford summer league ball and pay for the individual coaching to make their kids look sharp to college coaches. That works for women's soccer, I'm sure lacrosse, golf, tennis, equestrian, baseball, gymnastics, wrestling, and to a certain extent for swimming, but not for basketball (the interest is too low) and football (where size and speed matter). The result is what we are witnessing. Spread offenses, less defense (of course rule changes have hurt defensive ball at the college level as well) and higher scoring contests (which may be a good thing for the computer game light em up crowd). So enjoy Les Miles, Nick Saban, and other adherent's of the Pro Style attack and solid defense. They are being overwhelmed by fast receivers, no bumps or hands past the line of scrimmage on coverage, uncalled pick plays by receivers, liberal holding by the offensive line, and the up tempo wear out the big guys on defense style of play.

Malzahn and Briles succeed because they find the time to teach fundamentals and techniques and recognized early on the shift in mentality and talent coming out of the nation's high schools. And what makes those two particularly good is that teach the conditioning and fundamentals necessary to run a spread. Those skills are different from beef up front war in the trenches X's and O's.

Half full or half empty JR.
If I were a high school coach ANYWHERE, who better than the teacher of Peyton and Eli to teach me how to teach my kids?
You are saying that high school kids don't get good coaching, and I agree. But I am saying is that there are those who have also seen that problem and are trying to do something about it.
It's frustrating as a coach to try to teach your system to a new team when you constantly have to stop and do remedial training on fundamentals.
By the time a kid reaches high school sometimes it's too late. Proper skills need to be taught at the elementary level.
Your right about the middle class kids and access to good coaching early on. The others? When you don't have good parental involvement, or a father in the home, there are just not enough knowledgeable and qualified volunteers to take up the slack.

(09-11-2014 08:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Hoops anyone? Seriously Vandiver I think that Delany has already reconciled himself to this. My proof: Rutgers and Maryland. That's why Connecticut is not as far fetched as some think. He may well have conceded football and using football talk to lock down Eastern hoops and who better to do that with than the Huskies for men and women. If the GOR's are an impediment to the hoops programs of the ACC and the GOR and KState issue a problem for Kansas who else would they go for?

I pm'd XLance but the more I look at the more sense a 4 x 15 makes at the end of the Big 12's GOR. Add Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State to the PAC with Colorado as a bridge, add Oklahoma to the SEC, add Notre Dame fully to the ACC and UConn to the Big 10 and you have a 4 x 15 with only the most profitable and academically inclined schools. The PAC adds 3 AAU and places Utah and Colorado in the East. Oklahoma meets the mean of the SEC academics. Notre Dame commits. And the Big 10 goes for hoops with UConn. Then each conference can balance divisions with an at large spot. The networks and conferences earn more per team and nobody takes a weak sister.

A 6-team Big 12 would probably wind up gutting the AAC:

Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Houston
SMU

South Florida
Central Florida
East Carolina
West Virginia
Cincinnati

Oklahoma State
Tulsa
Memphis
Tulane
Kansas State

The AAC dissolves with Navy and Temple left holding the bag. Temple rejoins the A-10 for all sports but football, and then gets the Sun Belt to add them for football along with UMass and Army. Navy joins C-USA for football only.

(09-23-2014 09:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-23-2014 11:33 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 07:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Missouri believed the propaganda. It is that simple. You can say that it was good for the team as if saying that is a band aid. Propaganda is good for the masses but when players begin believing it, then the Coaches aren't doing their job.

It is positive in that it happened early and was an OOC loss. Not sure Pinkel had many positive comments for the team after the game. They embarrassed themselves before a sell out crowd. It will wake them up hopefully.

I would be a little worried if I was South Carolina.

Bet that hurt S Carolina as bad as our meltdown last year hurt us...