I went alphabetically through the roster, mainly skipped the ones actually from Nebraska so I'm sure I missed a few 3* and maybe a couple of 4*'s.
These are only 52 players on the roster that are 3* and above. Christ 16 4 stars...Tell me again about the bare cupboard Scotty Frost was left with.
Is this enough research Throwbones?
That's about the bare minimum work you could do right there, pretty lazy if you're trying to make your point because what we were discussing was how many players were no longer with the team from those recruiting classes. You were vaunting the recruiting classes being full of talent and that Nebraska has no lack of talent. The point I am making is that the class rank from those recruiting classes is misleading and not a good stat to point to if you're trying to argue for talent on the roster. If you were to look at what is actually left on the roster, class ranks would look a lot different.
I think it's interesting that you want to argue about stars and how much better Nebraska should be because of stars, but Iowa's a perfect example of succeeding without a bunch of stars on the roster? Also, 16 4 star players? You think that's a lot over 5 classes? That's 3.33 4 star players per year. Full of talent?
Couple of things to start:
- 4 of the 52 players you listed are no longer on the team: Barnett, Bryant, Jefferson, Alexander - three 3* and one 4*
- 17 of the remaining 48 you listed are either in their first year with the team or using their first year of eligibility
Year / class rank / # of recruits on signing day / # and list of recruits gone from the class by ranking in the class
2018 / #21 / 25 / 4 players gone from 2018 class; #5, 7, 23, 25
2017 / #20 / 20 / 9; #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 17, 18
2016 / #24 / 21 / 8; #3, 5, 7, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20
2015 / #31 / 21 / 7; #5, 6, 11, 15, 16, 17, 21
2014 / #32 / 19 / 12; #2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
So of the 106 players Nebraska signed over the last 5 years, 40 are gone from the program. 66 remain. If you want to stand by the recruiting rankings as your argument that Nebraska has so much talent currently on the roster, yet 38% of the recruits are not even on the team, your argument gets pretty weak.
Talent doesn't win games. Developed talent wins games. You win games with your juniors and seniors (which also happen to be depleted but also classes that were ranked in the low 30s to begin with) with a much smaller dose of sophomores and freshmen. Maybe the point I'm trying to make is that Nebraska has nowhere near the upperclassmen talent it needs to win games. Nebraska is playing on offense with 8 FR or SO starters, and 14 total on the 2-deep. 4 walk-ons on the two-deep. 11 players new to the field at Nebraska on the 2-deep. Does that sound like a recipe for success?
On the defensive side, there are 3 FR/SP starters, 9 total on the two-deep 1 walk-on, 5 new to the field. What's most concerning here is the actual number of upperclassmen who are playing, but you watch that defense and tell me how much flat out talent you see on the field.
Nebraska has some good football players, but not nearly enough of them. 0-6 is sort of an anomaly, the talent on this team is a probably better than 0-6, but when you want to use recruiting rankings to argue the talent depth on the team, you're missing the fact that only 62% of those recruiting classes are currently on the roster.