Decade-Long NU Recruiting Analysis

[OurDecay]

I've been waiting to post this until after the Andrew White situation was resolved.  Now that it has, I thought people would be interested in the big picture of NU's roster pedigree over the last decade, and how it has changed.

I've only gone back as far as the Rivals database does, which is the class of 2002.  While I have tried to keep this analysis as objective as possible, there are a number of caveats:

- The goal of this particular analysis is to establish perceived PEDIGREE of a player, not quality.  And it should be noted, this is their pedigree as a high school senior, in most cases.  This is NOT necessarily "who did NU beat?" for players directly in recruiting, but rather how highly they were thought of as prospects.  A great example of this would Moses Abraham, whose pedigree as a HS senior was sky-high, but as as senior transfer he was not being recruited by those same schools.  I'm interesting in the former rather than the latter, in trying to determine the "stock" the program has been working with.

- Coverage of basketball recruiting was not as pervasive a decade ago as it is now, at least not with the amount of players evaluated.  The 247 network, good bad or otherwise, has added an aggregate component that combines the ratings from Rivals, Scout and others and goes deeper than the top 150 players, but unfortunately it has only become fully formed in the last 4-5 years.  As such, when you get beyond the first 200 or so players, rankings get fairly sketchy.  The only way to be fair and apply this was to come up with placeholder values (they are listed in the attached table below) and apply them consistently.  The 247 aggregate ranking was used where possible for players.

- As you can imagine, rankings have not always consistently been applied.  For example, foreign players and JUCOs often times were left completely unrated by Rivals.  That said, good prospects have always been given a "star" ranking back since 2002 when Rivals switched to this format.  In cases where a player listed no other D1 offers and had no "star" ranking...they are a 0-star, #400 player.  Sadly, this has been a regular occurrence at NU until recently.

- I did also go player-by-player and list out all their top scholarship offers.  More on that later.

- This is inherently flawed and only a rough approximation.  Recruiting rankings are a crapshoot to begin with, and it gets crazy when you start to try to fill in blanks.  Just take this for whatever worth you assign to it.

Here is what the last 10 years of scholarship rosters looks like at NU:

 

The first thing that jumps out at you is MASSIVE shift in both star rankings of our rosters, and their overall prospect ranking.  Our roster next year will have 8 former top-200 prospects on it.  Just look at the delta across the board since Miles' arrival.  (And to clarify, yes, if a kid is on scholarship but is sitting out a year, he still counts.)  In Doc Sadler's 5th year as NU coach, NU had no top-200 players (can be partly attributed to 247's site not going that far back), and an average star rating of 2.00 for its scholarship roster.  Five years later, in Tim Miles year 3, those numbers have jumped to 8 and 2.92.

So maybe you think that the improvement is all due to better recruiting websites being in place?  Since I know you are curious...lets look at those 2 rosters, and see how they get to those numbers:

 

As you can see, the difference in scholarship offers is pretty profound.  

If you are curious, last year I did also look at the overall Big Ten, team-by-team, to try and determine where NU stands in this department.  It is a good reminder of what we are up against and why what Miles is doing is so important:

 

Enjoy, discuss.

RDK

[trickey]

Very nicely done...time consumming work and copyrighted too!

 

Thank you

[ajb5856]

Great work. The uptick in quality and talent of players coming into the program is evident.

In addition to the ratings and the stars, another maybe even more important factor in determining the overall quality of a player are the 'intangibles'. Coach Miles wants extremely high character guys with incredible work ethic, a high basketball IQ, who fit the system, and are great teammates and great students. Players who will represent the university well and have a full understanding on what it's going to take to get things done on the court and in the classroom.

It's easy for coaches to go to events and offer scholarships to 4 and 5 star players. Through the recruiting process the coaches learn whether or not a player is someone that they can being into the fold and someone that will excel in the program. While all the stars and ratings are extremely important because they gauge talent and potential, the coaches evaluations of character are equally if not more important. Coach Miles has this down. Look at each and every player he has brought in so far. They are all good students, are of high character, have incredible drive and work ethic, are good teammates, and are selected because they are an exact fit to the system. Zero compromises are made here.

[Norm Peterson]

Something is flawed in your analysis when transfer Bo Spencer is factored in as an unranked 300 level player and transfer Walter Pitchford is factored in as a 173.   Caleb Walker was a juco All-American.  He's rated at 400.  Benny Parker and David Rivers, on the other hand, are rated at 169 and 179 respectively.  I like both Benny and David but I've watched all three and I would say Caleb was the better overall player.

 

I think the Doc players are rated unrealistically lowly compared to the Miles roster.  Not sure what conclusions can really be drawn.  I've had a vague sense that Miles was recruiting better than his predecessors but I don't think my impression is really any more concrete after reading your tables.  Sure, you've provided a basis for tabulating things the way you have but it's your methodology that is called into question. 

 

I believe recruiting has improved.  But you've attempted to prove it objectively and the problem is that you can't prove something objectively when your "objective" evaluation relies on subjective assessments.

 

But, nice work.  It still gives us reason to believe we're getting better.

[OurDecay]

Norm, I think I covered most of that in my caveats. But for example...Caleb Walker...your beef is with Rivals, not me. Here is his recruiting profile:

https://rivals.yahoo.com/nebraska/basketball/recruiting/player-Caleb-Walker-109529;_ylt=ApyMmTymdajZXOaSft1lgUdRs5B4

They didn't list a single other offer, he didn't even get a star rating, and the commitment article suggested that he jumped at the NU offer. They mention he was his JUCO conference's player of the year. So if they undervalued him...and I'm not sure they did...that's on them.

[gobigredbrah]

Great post!

[nebrasketball10]

I agree it confirms what we've all assumed, but also contains flaws - as listed with your caveats. No one would consider Moses a 4-star prospect at this point. Also, it looks like Miles is getting credit for 3 Sadler guys.

To me, the ultimate proof with be 2... 3... 4 years from now. And I expect the data to continue to support our current assumptions.

Side note - recruiting SHOULD be hand-over-fist better... The administrate is taking basketball more seriously than it ever has.

[lanigan123]

It's perfect. I watched Doc's teams, they were that bad. I like looking at the average star ranking if offers. I think Doc was an ok coach who hired the worst staff imagineable. Tim is a good coach who hired a great staff. Coach Smith will be missed though.

[hhcmatt]

If you want to see Verbal Commits average for this year for the entire Big 10.

It basically supports the above that in terms of where the Huskers are current at in terms of landing highly rated prospects: towards the bottom. A combination of coaching, finding undervalued recruits, and finding players that fit our system has and can allow us to overcome this initial disadvantage.

 

BTW,we have already seen an advantage to recruiting 4-5 star recruits that we don't land: we've landed Abraham and White in the ever increasing world of Div I basketball transfers due to them previously being recruited by our staff. (THANKS KENYA!) Hopefully we can carry that momentum to landing these same types of players and freshmen.

[OurDecay]

Great point, dimes

[hhcmatt]

Great point, dimes

 

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading it.

I do think the stars comparisons are a bit skewed...I'd give unranked guys a 2 star rating instead of 0.  

[OurDecay]

 

Great point, dimes

 

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading it.

I do think the stars comparisons are a bit skewed...I'd give unranked guys a 2 star rating instead of 0.  

 

I set up the spreadsheets so that could be changed easily.  This was a first pass.  That would be an easy fix.  I could update the numbers and show how they look then.  That would help out the star issue and even it out a bit.

 

I'm open for suggestions on the overall ranking though...I eventually picked arbitrary numbers (300, 400, etc.) but I would consider alternative numbers or methods.  I originally tried to play talent evaluator and get subjective with those numbers...but that's a slope I didn't want to go down.  For one thing, its awfully easy to go into revisionist history...because you now know whether a guy panned out or didn't.

 

I'm always looking to improve it, so I'm all for input from HHC...that's why I posted it here.

[Donkey]

This analysis is flawed.  

 

1.  Measuring Pedigree not Quality.  It is not clear what you mean by pedigree and not quality.  Do you mean perceived value due to recruiting database rankings and/or offers?  It almost feels as if you are measuring the quality of the player and not the pedigree.  If you were to argue pedigree in the form of AAU team (in some cases it is assumed a player is quality because they play for a reputable AAU team); or coach (think Tarin Smith having a good pedigree because he played for Bobby Hurley in high school); or even bloodlines (Shavon Shields has a good pedigree because he is Will Shields' son).  However, rankings and scholarship offers are not a direct indication of pedigree.  Pedigree though could be a factor, although not exclusive, of quality and thus higher rankings and more scholarships offers.

 

2.  Rankings, even today, are flawed.  Unlike high school football, most highly rated high school basketball players play against top competition on a regular basis as a result of AAU tournaments and recruiting/development by private schools.  Most rating services concentrate upon those good-on-good tournaments for determining rankings.  However, a major flaw exists.  JUCOs, international kids, and non-AAU playing public high school kids are not scouted as much and do not receive as good of ratings.  Doc heavily relied upon JUCO and international recruiting for many of his classes as a result, Doc was penalized.

 

3.  Reported Scholarship Offers is also a flaw standard.  The recruiting databases only list scholarship offers which are claimed by the recruit.  For example, Baker Steinkuhler was a 5 star recruit for Nebraska.  A review of his profile reflects only Nebraska offered Steinkuhler.  Does that mean only Nebraska offered Baker?  The answer is "no" many schools offered Baker but Nebraska is the only offer Baker went on record receiving because Nebraska was the only school Baker ever considered.  Conversely, I know of a few kids who reported to have offers from multiple Power 5 schools to the recruiting services.  Since the schools cannot officially comment on recruits, the services had to depend on the word of the recruit.  In truth, most of these kids were just receiving information from the schools and never actually received an offer.  I remember talking to one recruit why he lied about his offer list and he said it was to drum up interest from other schools (it never worked).  

 

Additionally, in the case of JUCOs, schools only tend to take JUCOs when a specific need arises (which is the same as graduate transfers).  In most cases, while the kid may be great athletically, coaches tend to be reluctant to bring in a JUCO who will only be around for 1-2 seasons.  In most cases JUCOs provide depth and/or are roll players.  Further, until 2008, kids who didnt have the grades to play in college opted for the NBA instead of going to JUCO.

 

Finally, scouting internationally is not easy and rating services seem to only focus on kids who play on international all-star teams with high visibility. 

[OurDecay]

That is a fantastic response, Donkey...thank you.

So if I'm hearing you right, your belief is that there is really no way to measure or track recruiting in a "statistical" or objective way. No matter what you use, it would have the inherent flaws you mention.

So we pretty much need to rely on our own subjective judgements, or eyeballs, to determine the kinds of prospects we are recruiting to NU?

[nebrasketball10]

That is a fantastic response, Donkey...thank you.

So if I'm hearing you right, your belief is that there is really no way to measure or track recruiting in a "statistical" or objective way. No matter what you use, it would have the inherent flaws you mention.

So we pretty much need to rely on our own subjective judgements, or eyeballs, to determine the kinds of prospects we are recruiting to NU?

Results (wins and losses) is pretty objective. Obviously relies on more than just recruiting, but it's a big part.

[Donkey]

"We" as in us arm-chair quarterbacks?

[aphilso1]

"We" as in us arm-chair quarterbacks?

 

I prefer to think of myself as an armchair point guard.

[49r]

 

"We" as in us arm-chair quarterbacks?

 

I prefer to think of myself as an armchair point guard.

 

 

You mean armchair shipowner?

[bleujay]

Not that I know much about Husker bball recruiting pre-2011ish, but from an outsider's perspective I feel that Miles has improved upon previous coaches. Especially this 2015 class, which could come together for NU quite nicely. White was a great pickup and, no matter what delusional cu fans will say, you also have to give credit to Miles for picking out two players who had talent but not the right system to prove themselves (TP and walter).

 

All that said, I tend to agree with Norm in that you can't try to objectify basketball recruiting services and the ratings they give to players. "Stars" are worthless... and outside of the top100-150 players, a lot of evaluations are worthless as well. Some evaluations occur when recruits are underclassmen...and they don't get updated even once. When I'm looking at a recruit's "pedigree", I look at scholarship offers. What is the average level of school that offered this player a scholarship? Donkey is right, you can't trust the websites on this either...but if you dig deep enough on Twitter/ google news more often than not you can get a pretty good idea about where a recruit stands. In the end...the only talent evaluators that really matter are coaching staffs. Recruiting services are meant to be read by fans who want to feel like experts. In reality, basketball recruiting services on the internet are extremely flawed, and trying to "objectively" assess your program's recruiting upswing using them is pointless.

[lanigan123]

Basketball recruiting tends to be more accurate than football. Also, offers is one way they rate players. You can just see with the offers Miles hands out that it's more of a focus. He makes top guys say no, others didn't.

[Swan88]

That is a fantastic response, Donkey...thank you.

So if I'm hearing you right, your belief is that there is really no way to measure or track recruiting in a "statistical" or objective way. No matter what you use, it would have the inherent flaws you mention.

So we pretty much need to rely on our own subjective judgements, or eyeballs, to determine the kinds of prospects we are recruiting to NU?

Results (wins and losses) is pretty objective. Obviously relies on more than just recruiting, but it's a big part.

The Nebrasketball cellar-dweller to 4th-place-finish in the B1G last season is incredible, given the low-star and other-team-rejects and Doc-holdover nature of the team. The incredibility is particularly pronounced when compared with exceedingly high-star teams like Illinois and UNLV who underachieved their talent and were lucky to accomplish a win or two between them in the NIT. The long history of over-achievement of their talent by Tim Miles' teams is what makes the prospect of higher-level talent in Huskerland intriguing and exciting: if he could reach excellent results with talent that was perceived to be limited, imagine what he could do with high-level talent!

[OurDecay]

This is a bump to this thread I had started last year.  Many of you provided very good feedback and criticisms on the folly of using recruiting services, offers, etc. to judge recruiting progress.  With Elijah Thomas on campus and both Horne and Roby in the fold...I just thought I'd provide an update to show the trends "as is"...without claiming any value from them.

 

I did incorporate some feedback from you guys on how to evaluate unrated/unevaluated players.  Also...Isaiah Roby is a prime example of how you can't always use "offers" to judge a recruit.  He's clearly elite, highly rated...a top-150 player.  Yet his offer list is scant.  And that's for the obvious reason that we were on him very, very early, and he committed to us very, very early.

 

Anyway,  thought you guys would enjoy:

 

For context, the 2013-2014 Big Ten Conference using the same criteria:

 

I guess an immediate takeaway is...we are trending in the direction that would appear to be competitive (from a talent standpoint) with the bulk of the league.  That's one of those things that lead you to want to give Miles & co. a long, long leash and let it play out for a bit.  Gotta be patient.

 

RDK

[Fullbacksympathy]

This is a bump to this thread I had started last year.  Many of you provided very good feedback and criticisms on the folly of using recruiting services, offers, etc. to judge recruiting progress.  With Elijah Thomas on campus and both Horne and Roby in the fold...I just thought I'd provide an update to show the trends "as is"...without claiming any value from them.

 

I did incorporate some feedback from you guys on how to evaluate unrated/unevaluated players.  Also...Isaiah Roby is a prime example of how you can't always use "offers" to judge a recruit.  He's clearly elite, highly rated...a top-150 player.  Yet his offer list is scant.  And that's for the obvious reason that we were on him very, very early, and he committed to us very, very early.

 

Anyway,  thought you guys would enjoy:

 

For context, the 2013-2014 Big Ten Conference using the same criteria:

 

I guess an immediate takeaway is...we are trending in the direction that would appear to be competitive (from a talent standpoint) with the bulk of the league.  That's one of those things that lead you to want to give Miles & co. a long, long leash and let it play out for a bit.  Gotta be patient.

 

RDK

 

Great analysis.  This guy has gotten us to a top 4 conference talent level.  We just need to let the underclassmen ferment and keep filling in talented rosters behind them.  It's reasonable to wait given what Miles done in recruiting has basically never happened before at Nebraska (Nee was close).  

[hhcmatt]

This guy has gotten us to a top 4 conference talent level.   

 

That's not quite accurate. You're comparing a ranking number of 2 guys for next year's class vs numbers from 2013-14. Going by verbalcommits.com we've gone from the basement to middle of the pack though.

[OurDecay]

This guy has gotten us to a top 4 conference talent level.

That's not quite accurate. You're comparing a ranking number of 2 guys for next year's class vs numbers from 2013-14. Going by verbalcommits.com we've gone from the basement to middle of the pack though.

Exactly. That's still a great place to be, too.