Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Nebraska satellite camp hashtag appears to be #SpreadTheRed (CA Camp Updates)

[Keefover]

While I wholeheartedly support the remote camps, I believe it very premature to says that they "accomplished" their goals, unless their goals were ultra-simplistic. While there certainly is value to getting the brand out there and getting recruits familiar with MR and staff, there must be a goal to actually land a certain number of recruits from these camps and that goal, most certainly hasn't been met yet. If there is no such goal, or we have already met it...then we didn't set proper goals. I think the staff did a great job in organizing and working the camps, but I'm a firm believer in getting results from your work, which we won't really know about for sure for quite some time. I'm confident that this early work will have great results as the recruiting season wears on, but the goals are not accomplished. Just my opinion.

GFOA Everyone!!! Let's give him a round of applause. I was really getting use to the Recruiting section of the forums being positive GFOA. Thanks for saving the day!!!

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

GFOA Everyone!!! Let's give him a round of applause. I was really getting use to the Recruiting section of the forums being positive GFOA. Thanks for saving the day!!!

I expect that things will be very positive this year. I like what I see of the process, creativity and experimentation our new staff has, and their willingness to go the extra mile. By year end, I believe we will end up with at least a top 25 class and preferably a top 20 class. I do not believe there is anything in the recruiting process that this staff isn't doing better than their predecessors. But, all that is just opinion until the actual results come in this February. I base my opinion on the Rivals team rankings. Why rivals? Because they have been around for decades and it is important from a historic perspective to track classes consistently for comparison purposes. Are there better services? Perhaps, but it is better not to jump around to multiple services when you are doing historic comparisons.

Here are the historic numbers:

2016 (as of June 21): 32
2015: 31
2014: 32
2013: 17
2012: 25
2011: 15 (class seriously weakened by highly rated transfers, a no-show and injury)
2010: 22
2009: 28
2008: 30
2007: 13
2006: 20
2005: 05
2004: 58
2003: 42
2002: 40

The numbers don't lie, our best recent teams came after some pretty good recruiting classes from 2005-7 (and the salvage from 2008). We need to step it up as quickly as we can. I have faith in this staff, to not only do THAT, but also to coach up the team to make better use of the talent on hand. Everything is going great now! I can't wait for the results in February.

 

[Husker Mort]

247 goes back to 1999.
Scout goes back to 2001.
ESPN goes back to 2006.

 

[Keefover]

Anyways... I agree that it was a success. We made some connections with a number of recruits that otherwise might not have had the opportunity to know who Mike Riley and staff were. We also established a number of relationships with coaches all around the country. I believe the chips will fall in place once the staff gets to regroup and reanalyze their boards with the talent they have been presented with in the camps. If anything else they got a foot in the door on some 2017 & 2018 guys. The fact that these satellite camps occurred at all is a success in itself.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

247 goes back to 1999.
Scout goes back to 2001.
ESPN goes back to 2006.

Maybe so, but they are the first I remember and joined years ago (no longer a member). Early on they were the best and most of the other were nothing but spin-off's. Anyway, who cares? I'm just saying that if you want to compare classes historically, at least be consistent and stick to the same recruiting service rankings.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...world-of-college-football-recruiting-rankings
Rivals was founded in 1998 as an advertising-based site by Jim Heckman and his group out of Seattle, and the first Rivals rankings came out in 2002.Rivals can be seen as the breeding ground for the Big Four recruiting services, as early officers Shannon Terry and Heckman went on to found 247Sports and Scout, respectively.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

Anyways... I agree that it was a success. We made some connections with a number of recruits that otherwise might not have had the opportunity to know who Mike Riley and staff were. We also established a number of relationships with coaches all around the country. I believe the chips will fall in place once the staff gets to regroup and reanalyze their boards with the talent they have been presented with in the camps. If anything else they got a foot in the door on some 2017 & 2018 guys. The fact that these satellite camps occurred at all is a success in itself.

The bolded is where we disagree. Until we see concrete evidense that the camps are winning us recruiting commitments that lead to high national rankings in February, we just don't know if they've been successful or not. If you needed $500 and the only place you could get it was from your friends, if they all turned you down after you met with them, would you call your effort a success? Of course not, it's only a success if you get the $500.

I'm pretty confident we'll get our top 25 ranking, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[David3464]

The bolded is where we disagree. Until we see concrete evidense that the camps are winning us recruiting commitments that lead to high national rankings in February, we just don't know if they've been successful or not. If you needed $500 and the only place you could get it was from your friends, if they all turned you down after you met with them, would you call your effort a success? Of course not, it's only a success if you get the $500.

I'm pretty confident we'll get our top 25 ranking, but it hasn't happened yet.

I see it as an all encompassing philosophy. How is Nebraska going to get better at recruiting without alternatives to bringing kids from great distances to the school, whether its for BRW or some other event? To maximize the time of the staff, it sure seems like satellite camps are the way to go. Look at how many athletes the Husker coaches were able to view over the 4 camps...probably 700 and upwards. That's pretty successful. Granted they haven't landed anybody from them yet, but they made some offers and likely are many recruits 1st offers, which can pay dividends down the road. It's a "big picture" scenario looking at classes 2-3 yrs more than anything else with the relationships being built.

Is there another recruiting technique, GROA, that you think would be successful for the Huskers that isn't being done? Do you only measure successful recruiting efforts with the actual signing of a recruit? I think getting in the door into an area...with a HS Coach and other players eventually pays off. How many would need to sign from Satellite Camps to warrant your idea of "success"....One? Two? You paint yourself into a corner when you have to quantify it with a number I think. Bottom-line is that it's a strategy that has merit or why would other big schools like Mich, PennSt, etc...be doing it. Oregon State under Riley did it with success.

 

[bilsker]

The bolded is where we disagree. Until we see concrete evidense that the camps are winning us recruiting commitments that lead to high national rankings in February, we just don't know if they've been successful or not. If you needed $500 and the only place you could get it was from your friends, if they all turned you down after you met with them, would you call your effort a success? Of course not, it's only a success if you get the $500.

I'm pretty confident we'll get our top 25 ranking, but it hasn't happened yet.

If you needed to lose 50 pounds you can't get there before you lose 5, 10, 20, etc. lbs. The satellite camps appear to have met their initial goals. Yes, the ULTIMATE goal is to improve recruiting. And we can't know that until, at the SOONEST, February. But the results may build in years to come.

The reality is there is probably almost no downside (unless you count the money spent...and that's really only a downside if you're re-directing that money from some other productive endeavor). And a lot of upside. I like deals with limited downside and large upside.

 

[Huskerthom]

If you needed to lose 50 pounds you can't get there before you lose 5, 10, 20, etc. lbs. The satellite camps appear to have met their initial goals. Yes, the ULTIMATE goal is to improve recruiting. And we can't know that until, at the SOONEST, February. But the results may build in years to come.

The reality is there is probably almost no downside (unless you count the money spent...and that's really only a downside if you're re-directing that money from some other productive endeavor). And a lot of upside. I like deals with limited downside and large upside.

Guys. GFOA would be the first to tell you he and I do not always see eye to eye. However; in this case what he is saying is not that outlandish. He is simply reserving judgement until after we get a few recruits from the camps. That is not a crazy statement to make.

 

[ShortSideOption]

Everyone getting hung up on a singular word is a little silly. There were multiple goals, most of which were accomplished. Some, like gaining commitments, are TBD but the groundwork was set and accomplished to fulfill that goal.

Honestly, I don't think the ultimate or top goal was to gain commitments.

 

[Red Reign]

Exactly

Everyone getting hung up on a singular word is a little silly. There were multiple goals, most of which were accomplished. Some, like gaining commitments, are TBD but the groundwork was set and accomplished to fulfill that goal.

Honestly, I don't think the ultimate or top goal was to gain commitments.

 

[Red Reign]

Yup you nailed it....good post.....

If you needed to lose 50 pounds you can't get there before you lose 5, 10, 20, etc. lbs. The satellite camps appear to have met their initial goals. Yes, the ULTIMATE goal is to improve recruiting. And we can't know that until, at the SOONEST, February. But the results may build in years to come.

The reality is there is probably almost no downside (unless you count the money spent...and that's really only a downside if you're re-directing that money from some other productive endeavor). And a lot of upside. I like deals with limited downside and large upside.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

I see it as an all encompassing philosophy. How is Nebraska going to get better at recruiting without alternatives to bringing kids from great distances to the school, whether its for BRW or some other event? To maximize the time of the staff, it sure seems like satellite camps are the way to go. Look at how many athletes the Husker coaches were able to view over the 4 camps...probably 700 and upwards. That's pretty successful. Granted they haven't landed anybody from them yet, but they made some offers and likely are many recruits 1st offers, which can pay dividends down the road. It's a "big picture" scenario looking at classes 2-3 yrs more than anything else with the relationships being built.

Is there another recruiting technique, GROA, that you think would be successful for the Huskers that isn't being done? Do you only measure successful recruiting efforts with the actual signing of a recruit? I think getting in the door into an area...with a HS Coach and other players eventually pays off. How many would need to sign from Satellite Camps to warrant your idea of "success"....One? Two? You paint yourself into a corner when you have to quantify it with a number I think. Bottom-line is that it's a strategy that has merit or why would other big schools like Mich, PennSt, etc...be doing it. Oregon State under Riley did it with success.

I have not been critical of this staff in any way. In fact, I have been very complimentary of what I've been seeing. My only point is that we have some "experts" on this board that have declared goals as already "accomplished" and the main goal in all of this can not be deemed accomplished successfully until February. Yes, some relatively minor objectives of the camps, which hopefully lead to accomplishing the goal, likely have been successful. But holding the camps in and of itself is not the same as accomplishing the goal, which I assume is to land a certain number of high caliber players. It is likely, that only the coaches will know if they meet their goal. I do agree that incremental progress is good and the camps may foster that, even if they don't meet their goal in February, But, ultimately we are talking about improving the recruiting classes...and that can't be accomplished in June.

 

[Greatest Fan of All]

Everyone getting hung up on a singular word is a little silly. There were multiple goals, most of which were accomplished. Some, like gaining commitments, are TBD but the groundwork was set and accomplished to fulfill that goal.

Honestly, I don't think the ultimate or top goal was to gain commitments.

I do not believe THAT for a nano-second. That said, I am not saying their goal was to get commitments at the camp, recruiting takes time...but the camps should lead to commitments.

 

[CO4NU]

Was it ever specifically stated by MR what the specific goals were prior to the camps?

If not? No one here would know IF they had been "accomplished".