KSUFans Archives
Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: Pett on May 29, 2007, 05:07:18 PM
-
Hogan is on their as #81..........Does that mean he qualified???????????
:hope:
:curse:
:confused:
http://www.kstatesports.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=400&KEY=&SPID=212&SPSID=3062
-
Congrats on making the grade Danny!
:ksu:
-
Hogan... Plans to major in business and open an employment agency for ex-convicts following graduation.
-
Jamal Schulters and Courtney Edmond have been on the updated rosters, but neither one made it. Still, it is a good sign because none of the other guys who double-signed with jucos is on there.
-
Also, the rumors we heard on Jake Roepke about not being eligible I guess are true. He's not on there.
YESS!!!!
But on the other hand....
Kirk & Freeze are on there.
:-[ :frown: :blindfold: :blank: :banghead:
-
Dee Bell listed at 170 :love: :love:
-
Also, the rumors we heard on Jake Roepke about not being eligible I guess are true. He's not on there.
I guess all of that growling was for nothing... :'(
-
I was told that during the last 40 days of school, Roepke missed 19 of them and did not turn in much homework. :eek:
-
Evans
Harris
Haynes
McDaniel
Roepke
Walls
They will now become the recruits we can't do w/ out(the best of the class) per Nubb and beak. :rolleyes:
-
Evans
Harris
Haynes
McDaniel
Roepke
Walls
They will now become the recruits we can't do w/ out(the best of the class) per Nubb and beak. :rolleyes:
Walls is a pretty big loss, no? Top 100 Texas player.
-
yeah, Walls is the biggest loss. I would imagine Jayson Cuba has a good shot at not grayshirting. He can already start benching in June, so it would be good for him to take a redshirt and continue his rehab within the program starting this summer. I suppose there is an outside shot some late recruit could show up to use the open 'ship, but I'd bet that's pretty unlikely.
-
I see Purvis has put on 7 lbs of rock hard lean muscle.
-
Someone needs to do a breakdown of hometown states.
-
as far as talent goes I would rank Walls 4th on that list behind McDaniel, Haynes, and Harris.
-
i think Walls was the only one on the list that we didn't know was going juco. if he ends up at Navarro, maybe he can tell the Webb kid from Texas to transfer here. :blush:
-
at least we know Webb has visited Manhattan and seen some of the facilities, and game atmosphere. (45-42) :thumbsup:
-
My thought is you never really know which recruits are going to make it until they're enrolled in their first class. We have LaTravis Washington listed on the NU roster for 2007 and he's probably not going to enroll until January. Demetrious Davis probably needs to go to JUCO for a year as well and he is listed. Those guys not on there might be the ones that are absolutely ruled out.
-
Evans
Harris
Haynes
McDaniel
Roepke
Walls
They will now become the recruits we can't do w/ out(the best of the class) per Nubb and beak. :rolleyes:
as far as talent goes I would rank Walls 4th on that list behind McDaniel, Haynes, and Harris.
Those two statements really don't mesh. You insinuate that losing these guys aren't that big a deal. Then you claim that 3 of them are better than Walls who was number 70 on the Rivals Texas 100. So basically you're saying losing 4 players who are at least Texas top 70 caliber players is alright. How does that make sense?
-
I think we will all be sweating until we know Hogan is on campus this summer and taking summer school. And we'll sweat until Patterson is physically on campus and in summer school...and Abana should have us worried. He looks far too talented for the lack of offers and according to a poster his facebook says he will be in summer school at JC until August. That makes me very nervous.
-
Then you claim that 3 of them are better than Walls who was number 70 on the Rivals Texas 100.
That is exactly what I am saying. Some believe in recruiting rankings...I do not. Yes, I believe the three mentioned are better talents than Walls. And others disagree on Walls. Who is to say who is correct between the recruiting services? I form my own opinions...we have had players who I feel were overrated and some who were underrated.
-
I'm guessing that 2 of the 3 guys you have rated ahead of Walls were pretty much bypassed by the recruiting services because they didn't have much chance of qualifying. That happens.
-
Lamark is on there? Phog.net was sure he didn't qualify!
Hmmm...wonder why they are so afraid of him.?
-
Then you claim that 3 of them are better than Walls who was number 70 on the Rivals Texas 100.
That is exactly what I am saying. Some believe in recruiting rankings...I do not. Yes, I believe the three mentioned are better talents than Walls. And others disagree on Walls. Who is to say who is correct between the recruiting services? I form my own opinions...we have had players who I feel were overrated and some who were underrated.
How much free time do you have to watch hours and hours on end of high school recruiting video? I will trust Rivals more than you. I don't see how you can claim to have better info than they do. If you are this great recruiting guru, then maybe you need to start your own service and charge us simpletons for your wealth of knowledge.
-
I will trust Rivals more than you.
umm...okay. Good. After I get over having my feelings crushed I think I'll get back to forming my own opinions again. And it doesn't take "hours and hours" to watch a few video clips. :tongue:
-
wtf happened with Walls
-
Grades.
Yeah, it sucks, but Hogan made the roster when many other non qualifier possibilities did not. Which means he probably has a good shot.
Manhattan Christian College FTW! (k-state basically handfeeds A's to our athletes through this juco.)*
*Not really, but that would be cool. Or maybe they do, I don't really know.
-
I will trust Rivals more than you.
umm...okay. Good. After I get over having my feelings crushed I think I'll get back to forming my own opinions again. And it doesn't take "hours and hours" to watch a few video clips. :tongue:
So I'm supposed to take your word over Rivals because you ". . . watch a few video clips"? Don't they watch the same clips you do, and probably a heck of a lot more? So wouldn't you think they would know a smidge more than you. Now, I'm not saying these ratings are the end all in evaluating recruits. But I will take their word over yours, as most rational folks will. But keep puffing that chest out.
-
So I'm supposed to take your word over Rivals because you ". . . watch a few video clips"? Don't they watch the same clips you do, and probably a heck of a lot more? So wouldn't you think they would know a smidge more than you.
I never suggested you had to believe and I really don't care. But I will say that rivals NEVER received video of McDaniel, Haynes, or Harris so they would have a hard time judging the better player over Walls now wouldn't they?
McDaniel was defensive player of the year in St. Louis metro according to St. Louis Post Dispatch and had over 1K receiving yards as a receiver as well. And he long jumped nearly 24 feet. Sounds like a bit of a player huh?
Harris...well he's 6-4 220 and played safety for East St. Louis and the hit he makes on the receiver on KSU's official site...lol.
Haynes...hits like a train, 6 feet, and qualified for the state track meet in 100 and 200 in Florida's largest classification.
We're not talking about podunk kids...we're talking about kids rivals barely followed because they were not going to qualify.
So I will reiterate...out of the 6 I think Walls is 4th most talented. He's an undersized LB..oh, he's good but he's not as talented as the 3 mentioned.
And I'm spent..have a good one.
-
I will trust Rivals more than you.
umm...okay. Good. After I get over having my feelings crushed I think I'll get back to forming my own opinions again. And it doesn't take "hours and hours" to watch a few video clips. :tongue:
So I'm supposed to take your word over Rivals because you ". . . watch a few video clips"? Don't they watch the same clips you do, and probably a heck of a lot more? So wouldn't you think they would know a smidge more than you. Now, I'm not saying these ratings are the end all in evaluating recruits. But I will take their word over yours, as most rational folks will. But keep puffing that chest out.
This is the 12th recruiting class K-State has hauled in since I started to pay attention to football recruiting. After 12 years of reading Rivals and listening to Manhatter, I will say Manhatter has a much higher percentage of being correct when it comes to K-State recruits. It's not even close. Manhatter may come off a bit abrasive sometimes, and he's certainly not perfect, but he's fairly knowledgible and does good research. He isn't the only poster I would listen to over Rivals either. Rivals rankings, when it comes to any recruit not in the top 100 or so, is generally beyond horrible. If you are serious about following football recruiting completely ignore anything Rivals says about: a. three star or lower highschool players, or b. JUCO players. If you just spend 20 minutes googling these type of recruits on the internet, you will likely already have done more research than Rivals has on them. Most recruiting enthusiasts (freaks) only use Rivals a tool to see who their school is interested in. They don't take the ratings or the measurables seriously. You shouldn't either. I mean do you honestly believe that every incoming skill position freshman in America runs a 4.5 40 or better? Who do you think does more research, obsessed fans who know the names of the walk-on longsnappers or Rivals who sometimes has to add a player to the database, and quiclkly slap a couple of stars on them, after they have committed to a school. LOL @ Rivals evaluations. It's harder to name K-State players they were right about then it is to name players they were wrong about.
-
Yosh, one good example of what you are talking about is with Jeremy Mack. He was injured his junior year and played healthy in only 5 games. Rivals had zero film and slapped 2 stars on him early in the process. Jeremy Crabtree, a KC native, had every opportunity to watch film on the kid since a couple of his games were on cable in KC, but he just never had time to look at it. Eventually, Mack had some pretty impressive offers from a handful of BCS schools despite what his profile shows, but Rivals never really evaluated him beyond talking to opposing coaches before his senior year. Also, later in the process, politics begins to play into how the ratings work. Crabtree is far more interested in keeping the subscribers from the bigtime schools happy by giving their players higher ratings, and it doesn't look good when he shifts their recruits down in favor of guys from schools that have a smaller membership on their network.
I'm not saying the kid is or is not better than 2 stars, but rivals really didn't do much to evaluate him after an injury-plagued junior year. You can see why they swing and miss so often with their ratings.
-
Someone needs to do a breakdown of hometown states.
Here's a rough breakdown:
1 Ark
1 Conn
1 GA
1 Iowa
1 MASS
1 MD
1 Va
3 CO
3 ILL
3 OK
5 Neb
7 CA
7 MO
8 Fla
15 TE
42 KS
-
Snyder made KSU fans think that they were more knowledgable than they truly are in several different areas. One of these is recruiting. Whether you believe the myth that Snyder was a master of finding the hidden gem or that he merely had a scrub friendly system, he took groups of players that not many D1 programs were hot for and a few of them would end up being great college players. KSU fans touted these players when they were recruits (along with all of the others that did not pan out) and then mistakenly inferred from this that they knew something about evaluating recruits. On the rare occasion that a KSU fan evaluated the recruit of another, less succesful program, the review was almost always a bad one.
-
lol :lol:
-
Someone needs to do a breakdown of hometown states.
Here's a rough breakdown:
1 Ark
1 Conn
1 GA
1 Iowa
1 MASS
1 MD
1 Va
3 CO
3 ILL
3 OK
5 Neb
7 CA
7 MO
8 Fla
15 TE
42 KS
:frown:
-
Snyder made KSU fans think that they were more knowledgable than they truly are in several different areas. One of these is recruiting. Whether you believe the myth that Snyder was a master of finding the hidden gem or that he merely had a scrub friendly system, he took groups of players that not many D1 programs were hot for and a few of them would end up being great college players. KSU fans touted these players when they were recruits (along with all of the others that did not pan out) and then mistakenly inferred from this that they knew something about evaluating recruits. On the rare occasion that a KSU fan evaluated the recruit of another, less succesful program, the review was almost always a bad one.
There is a lot of truth in this post, but it doesn't change the fact that Rivals sucks. Rivals has never even been close on a K-State football class. Never even remotely close.
-
Rivals sucks. Rivals has never even been close on a K-State football class. Never even remotely close.
Either that or recruiting rankings are based more on potential than on outcomes. No one really disputes that Snyder's teams played above their potential or that John Blake's OU teams played well below theirs, right?
-
Hasn't rivals consistently had our class in the 40's since 2001? Seems decently accurate.
-
So I'm supposed to take your word over Rivals because you ". . . watch a few video clips"? Don't they watch the same clips you do, and probably a heck of a lot more? So wouldn't you think they would know a smidge more than you.
I never suggested you had to believe and I really don't care. But I will say that rivals NEVER received video of McDaniel, Haynes, or Harris so they would have a hard time judging the better player over Walls now wouldn't they?
McDaniel was defensive player of the year in St. Louis metro according to St. Louis Post Dispatch and had over 1K receiving yards as a receiver as well. And he long jumped nearly 24 feet. Sounds like a bit of a player huh?
Harris...well he's 6-4 220 and played safety for East St. Louis and the hit he makes on the receiver on KSU's official site...lol.
Haynes...hits like a train, 6 feet, and qualified for the state track meet in 100 and 200 in Florida's largest classification.
We're not talking about podunk kids...we're talking about kids rivals barely followed because they were not going to qualify.
So I will reiterate...out of the 6 I think Walls is 4th most talented. He's an undersized LB..oh, he's good but he's not as talented as the 3 mentioned.
And I'm spent..have a good one.
But how does this review then jive with your earlier assertion that losing any of these guys is no big deal? You can't have it both ways. You're "spent" after describing their wonderful athletic/football qualities, but would ridicule anyone saying that losing these guys somehow affects the quality of the class. chum1 is pretty much dead on, I believe.
-
#5 Ernie Pierce
Think someone told him about Qunicy Morgan and James Terry and the "history" of wearing that number as a receiver for KSU.
Hope he's as good as those two (well, a better route runner than Terry).
-
Around the same height as both also. Probably taller at a legit 6'4" with Terry and Morgan at 6'3" & 6'4".
-
(well, a better route runner than Terry).
Ha! Remember that time Ell gave James a stern look after he botched a route in the big 12 ccg?
LOL! I loved those guys! Loved!
(http://www.members.cox.net/ksufan/e3.jpg)
-
Lol, yea.....James was barely even running that slant pattern. And almost got intercepted by Perkins. Luckily, it wasn't.
:hope:
-
Around the same height as both also. Probably taller at a legit 6'4" with Terry and Morgan at 6'3" & 6'4".
Morgan was 6'1", and that's being generous.
-
But how does this review then jive with your earlier assertion that losing any of these guys is no big deal? You can't have it both ways. You're "spent" after describing their wonderful athletic/football qualities, but would ridicule anyone saying that losing these guys somehow affects the quality of the class. chum1 is pretty much dead on, I believe.
It's really quite simple so don't make it difficult.
1) We never expected Harris, Haynes, Evans, or McDaniel to make it. There were no expectations..how will we "miss" players who were never coming as freshman in the first place? All were placements from the first we knew about them.
2) We knew they were placements but beak and Nubb didn't necessarily know that. And both beak and Nubb, as you can see by some message board threads, think the next guy who doesn't qualify is "KSU will really miss without that guy"...funny thing is he was a nobody until he was a non-qualifier.
Good. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
-
Yosh,
Thanks but I certainly don't feel I do a better job than rivals. I think any of us...if we viewed some video clips of some kids can "guess" better than rivals but not w/ great accuracy. It's all hit or miss and because of that why not form our own opinions of kids? The evaluations from the different recruiting services can wildly vary once you get out of the no-brainer top 100 types.
-
But how does this review then jive with your earlier assertion that losing any of these guys is no big deal? You can't have it both ways. You're "spent" after describing their wonderful athletic/football qualities, but would ridicule anyone saying that losing these guys somehow affects the quality of the class. chum1 is pretty much dead on, I believe.
It's really quite simple so don't make it difficult.
1) We never expected Harris, Haynes, Evans, or McDaniel to make it. There were no expectations..how will we "miss" players who were never coming as freshman in the first place? All were placements from the first we knew about them.
2) We knew they were placements but beak and Nubb didn't necessarily know that. And both beak and Nubb, as you can see by some message board threads, think the next guy who doesn't qualify is "KSU will really miss without that guy"...funny thing is he was a nobody until he was a non-qualifier.
Good. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
"We?" Explain to me who "we" is. My guess is most KSU fans are not included on the "we", or else this thread would have never existed.
And isn't it a bit dangerous to offer and get commitments from so many players who (according to you) it was well known that they would not qualify? Why not use those schollies on players who will be at KSU 4/5 years instead of players who maybe will have two years eligibility at KSU, if they don't transfer to another school after being at a JUCO. Do you trust JUCO's to develop players better than the KSU coaching staff.
I guess my point is, why offer players who you know as a certainty won't make it to campus? At least not for two years. Why not use the schollies on players who can be in the program long term?
-
What was that about Walls not making it? :peek:
-
"We?" Explain to me who "we" is. My guess is most KSU fans are not included on the "we", or else this thread would have never existed.
We would be just about anybody on this board or on the gpc and scout sites who read recruiting updates or see the discussion. So "we" includes quite a few KSU fans who saw comments from these kids where it said, "I have to go to juco first" or who noticed posts showing that these kids signed dual letter of intents(one to KSU and one to a JC)
That is "we". A lot of people knew this...glad I could clear that up for you.
And isn't it a bit dangerous to offer and get commitments from so many players who (according to you) it was well known that they would not qualify? Why not use those schollies on players who will be at KSU 4/5 years instead of players who maybe will have two years eligibility at KSU, if they don't transfer to another school after being at a JUCO. Do you trust JUCO's to develop players better than the KSU coaching staff.
Time for some education. Take a seat and open your ears. Schools can sign as many as they want. If they want to sign 40 they can sign 40. They can only admit 25 per class...that is the NCAA limit. But only up to the 85. If a program has 63 kids on scholarship going into the fall from the previous year they can only sign 22. Some can count back which are mid-year signees.
The point is...signing a kid destined for JC does not take someone's scholie. And programs sign JC kids because the JC's protect those kids for them. JC's do not have a big recruiting budget...they rely on contacts from BCS programs to send them kids...and in return that JC will will prevent the recruitment of the kid from other programs. It's called a "sign and place" and the kid knows going into that JC that if the same coach is at the BCS school where they signed they will be signing w/ that BCS school again should they want them again. That is the way it works...period.
So basically KSU gets Haynes, Harris, McDaniel, and whoever else doesn't make it, in two years if KSU wants them. And their signing this year did not "take up" a scholarship from some kid who could be at KSU for 4/5 years.
Glad I could be of some assistance.
-
But how does this review then jive with your earlier assertion that losing any of these guys is no big deal? You can't have it both ways. You're "spent" after describing their wonderful athletic/football qualities, but would ridicule anyone saying that losing these guys somehow affects the quality of the class. chum1 is pretty much dead on, I believe.
It's really quite simple so don't make it difficult.
1) We never expected Harris, Haynes, Evans, or McDaniel to make it. There were no expectations..how will we "miss" players who were never coming as freshman in the first place? All were placements from the first we knew about them.
2) We knew they were placements but beak and Nubb didn't necessarily know that. And both beak and Nubb, as you can see by some message board threads, think the next guy who doesn't qualify is "KSU will really miss without that guy"...funny thing is he was a nobody until he was a non-qualifier.
Good. I'm glad I could clear that up for you.
"We?" Explain to me who "we" is. My guess is most KSU fans are not included on the "we", or else this thread would have never existed.
And isn't it a bit dangerous to offer and get commitments from so many players who (according to you) it was well known that they would not qualify? Why not use those schollies on players who will be at KSU 4/5 years instead of players who maybe will have two years eligibility at KSU, if they don't transfer to another school after being at a JUCO. Do you trust JUCO's to develop players better than the KSU coaching staff.
I guess my point is, why offer players who you know as a certainty won't make it to campus? At least not for two years. Why not use the schollies on players who can be in the program long term?
Yeah, you should definitely stop talking now. You officially know nothing.
-
We would be just about anybody on this board or on the gpc and scout sites who read recruiting updates or see the discussion. So "we" includes quite a few KSU fans who saw comments from these kids where it said, "I have to go to juco first" or who noticed posts showing that these kids signed dual letter of intents(one to KSU and one to a JC)
That is "we". A lot of people knew this...glad I could clear that up for you.
Time for some education. Take a seat and open your ears. Schools can sign as many as they want. If they want to sign 40 they can sign 40. They can only admit 25 per class...that is the NCAA limit. But only up to the 85. If a program has 63 kids on scholarship going into the fall from the previous year they can only sign 22. Some can count back which are mid-year signees.
The point is...signing a kid destined for JC does not take someone's scholie. And programs sign JC kids because the JC's protect those kids for them. JC's do not have a big recruiting budget...they rely on contacts from BCS programs to send them kids...and in return that JC will will prevent the recruitment of the kid from other programs. It's called a "sign and place" and the kid knows going into that JC that if the same coach is at the BCS school where they signed they will be signing w/ that BCS school again should they want them again. That is the way it works...period.
So basically KSU gets Haynes, Harris, McDaniel, and whoever else doesn't make it, in two years if KSU wants them. And their signing this year did not "take up" a scholarship from some kid who could be at KSU for 4/5 years.
Glad I could be of some assistance.
Again, if this is such common knowledge to KSU fans then why does this thread exist? And no need to be defensive. It's just a discussion.
On to this fabulous recruiting technique. Makes you wonder who's looking out for the kids' best interest. Certainly isn't the JUCO or the school the kid initially committed to. But something tells me the kid could chose whatever school he wants after his time at a JUCO is up. Please give me examples of players where KSU has done this and then the kid did end up at KSU after JUCO.
Anyway, the past two years KSU has signed 63 players (according to Rivals). 31 last year, 32 this year. No one else is even close. I'm curious, and I assume you know, how many of those 63 are being placed in JUCO's with an obligation to KSU when their time is up? And if the 63 is not accurate, please correct me.
-
Please give me examples of players where KSU has done this and then the kid did end up at KSU after JUCO.
There are lots, but the one that immediately comes to mind for me is Gary Chandler.
-
In addition to Chandler, here are some more guys: Justin McKinney, Ced Wilson, Mike Weiner, Jermaine Berry, and I've heard we placed Greg Wafford, but I've also heard otherwise. We've also placed guys who ended up not cutting it academically such as Jerry Hill or Jerrell someone, a DE who tore it up at a texas juco but didn't qualify and went D-1; guys who ended up not being cut out for D-1 such as Lester Graham who last I heard had transferred to a lower division school in Michigan; and guys like Nevin MacKenzie and Reynaldo Hill, who ended up elsewhere b/c of a coaching change or b/c the previous asst. coach in charge of recruiting Dodge completely &@#%ed up.
The SEC signs and places kids, especially at Coffeyville and the Mississippi jucos. Signing and placing has been around for awhile. It seems like some of the Florida schools prefer to send their kids to jucos in Cali or Kansas.
-
Again, if this is such common knowledge to KSU fans then why does this thread exist? And no need to be defensive. It's just a discussion.
because this thread was more about those who we still speculate may not make it..hogan, patterson, etc. Haynes, Harris, Evans, and McDaniel were a given, period. Walls and Roepke has been discussed as non-qualifiers.
On to this fabulous recruiting technique. Makes you wonder who's looking out for the kids' best interest. Certainly isn't the JUCO or the school the kid initially committed to. But something tells me the kid could chose whatever school he wants after his time at a JUCO is up. Please give me examples of players where KSU has done this and then the kid did end up at KSU after JUCO.
It doesn't make us wonder who is looking out for the kids best interests because the BCS program who signs the kid is...all schools do it. How can you say the JC or school who signed the kid isn't looking out for them? LOL. The BCS program wants that kid back in two years...if he doesn't sign anywhere then nobody cares except for the JC. It's two fold really...the JC needs players, good ones, so the BCS program sends them there. But the BCS program also places pressure on that JC kid to see that he stays in line and makes his grades...see how that works? If there is not a BCS program signing and placing then there are not expectations or pressure coming from a BCS program. And there are differences among the JC's...the BCS program and will place the kid where they see the best fit.
It's a win-win situation...don't assume nobody is looking out for the kid when it sounds like you wouldn't know your arse from a hole in the ground when it comes to this subject.
And, no, nothing tells you the kid can pick wherever if you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. Examples? Corey White, Justin McKinney, Cedric Wilson, Gary Chandler...there are more. It's really quite simple...JC's who do not protect kids will develop a rep and not get kids from those schools in the future...others will be hesitant sending those kids to that school to....simple stuff and easy to figure out.
Anyway, the past two years KSU has signed 63 players (according to Rivals). 31 last year, 32 this year. No one else is even close. I'm curious, and I assume you know, how many of those 63 are being placed in JUCO's with an obligation to KSU when their time is up? And if the 63 is not accurate, please correct me.
quite typical of new coaches in new programs...he'll sign the full 25 in a class because he will have more transfers, etc. And due to past class will probably have some that count back. And in KSU's case Prince is trying to rekindle some relationships w/ Jayhawk JC's so he is intentionally signing and placing a number of kids.
-
Nevin MacKenzie and Reynaldo Hill
nope. Never signed those kids so they were free to go wherever. We signed Reynaldo's little brother, Jerry, but not Reynaldo. Nevin was committed but the offer withdrawn after he got into his situation.
If we SIGN and place a kid then we get that kid back after two years UNLESS...
1) we don't want the kid after the two years
2) the kid can't transfer credits or fails out of school
3) there is a coaching change (this is why Ced Wilson and Chandler were allowed to be recruited..if Snyder still in Manhattan then their recruitment would have been closed to other schools)
-
Someone needs to do a breakdown of hometown states.
Here's a further breakdown for each of Prince's classes by home state. The breakdown consists of only players that are on the roster right now, so for instance, Devin Anderson is not included (although Hogan and Patterson are).
2006 Class
TX 4 17%
MO 3 13%
OK 3 13%
KS 2 9%
FL 2 9%
CA 1 4%
NEB 1 4%
ILL 1 4%
CO 1 4%
OR 1 4%
MD 1 4%
GA 1 4%
ARK 1 4%
CNT 1 4%
2007 Class
KS 6 23%
TX 5 19%
MO 5 19%
CA 3 12%
NEB 1 4%
ILL 2 8%
VA 1 4%
Int'l 1 4%
FL 1 4%
CO 1 4%
-
Hatter, whatever happened with Asante? Was he allowed to go to NU because of the coaching change? Oh yeah, and Walls' mother says he will be here in August..
-
Just out of curiousty again, how many of the 63 that has committed to KSU in the past two years have been placed at a Juco? I assume you'd know, Manhatter.
-
Asante? Not signed by KSU out of high school.
63 is actually 61 and it's spread over 3 classes. Freeman and a few others may appear on the '06 commit list but they signed mid-year and can count BACK to the '05 class.
How many are in JC's? Don't know...we don't know the exact total of the '07 class yet.
If you're trying to suggest this practice is in someway "immoral" or "illegal" which it seems you may have attempted to do..lol, all schools do it. Maybe not as many as KSU will do over the first few years under Prince but like I said there is a reason for that.
-
Oh, I was under the impression that we initially signed Asante.
-
Asante? Not signed by KSU out of high school.
63 is actually 61 and it's spread over 3 classes. Freeman and a few others may appear on the '06 commit list but they signed mid-year and can count BACK to the '05 class.
How many are in JC's? Don't know...we don't know the exact total of the '07 class yet.
If you're trying to suggest this practice is in someway "immoral" or "illegal" which it seems you may have attempted to do..lol, all schools do it. Maybe not as many as KSU will do over the first few years under Prince but like I said there is a reason for that.
Certainly not illegal. Ethically it seems a little fishy. Saying all schools do it doesn't make it more ethical. And Prince is hardly the only new coach in D-1, but he is the one with consecutive classes of 31 and 32. Seems like the school can drop a kid if they want to after he's been placed at a Juco (if I understand it right). Pretty sure that's not what a kid would be counting on when he signed a LOI to KSU (or any other university). But I will digress, recruiting/college football is a shady business overall.
-
Certainly not illegal. Ethically it seems a little fishy. Saying all schools do it doesn't make it more ethical. And Prince is hardly the only new coach in D-1, but he is the one with consecutive classes of 31 and 32. Seems like the school can drop a kid if they want to after he's been placed at a Juco (if I understand it right). Pretty sure that's not what a kid would be counting on when he signed a LOI to KSU (or any other university). But I will digress, recruiting/college football is a shady business overall.
please clarify what is unethical about it? You act as though these kids don't know they are heading to juco...they do. LOL. Everything is up front...nothing unethical about it. If you say "it sounds unethical" doesn't make it so...maybe if you gave a reasonable explanation but based on this thread not much of what you have said has been reasonable or knowledgable.
LOL on consecutive classes of 31 or 32...I guess you didn't read. It was 29 and 32(= 61) and some of those w/ in the 29 count BACK to the '05 class. Pretty easy stuff.
-
The only kid that Prince has actually &@#%ed over was Adonis Thomas and he's headed to Tulsa so it's not likely he got hurt that bad.. I guess you could say he screwed Everidge, Webb and Lopina over but Webb is really the only one hurting from that situation..
-
How come Brandon Walls isn't on there?
-
Josh Scobey is a great example of signing a HS kid, placing him at JC, and the JC protecting him to send him back to KSU. Schools were all over him after his JC years, and there was never a question that he was coming to KSU.
-
Certainly not illegal. Ethically it seems a little fishy. Saying all schools do it doesn't make it more ethical. And Prince is hardly the only new coach in D-1, but he is the one with consecutive classes of 31 and 32. Seems like the school can drop a kid if they want to after he's been placed at a Juco (if I understand it right). Pretty sure that's not what a kid would be counting on when he signed a LOI to KSU (or any other university). But I will digress, recruiting/college football is a shady business overall.
please clarify what is unethical about it? You act as though these kids don't know they are heading to juco...they do. LOL. Everything is up front...nothing unethical about it. If you say "it sounds unethical" doesn't make it so...maybe if you gave a reasonable explanation but based on this thread not much of what you have said has been reasonable or knowledgable.
LOL on consecutive classes of 31 or 32...I guess you didn't read. It was 29 and 32(= 61) and some of those w/ in the 29 count BACK to the '05 class. Pretty easy stuff.
Kid commits to KSU with coach telling him "we've got to place you in a Juco for a couple of years, then you're coming to KSU to play." Kid puts in his two years at Juco, but KSU coach now says "we really don't want or need you any more, sorry it's just not going to work out." Kid committed to KSU with every intention of playing there, coach then decides not bring the kid to KSU. Sucks for the kid. Not illegal, but unethical. Unless you're saying every kid they place, assuming they qualify, will play ball at KSU.
By the way, even if your 61 number is correct, no other school matches that. So LOL.
-
It's not too unethical because the kid is the one that screwed up in the first place. If he would have made grades, there never would have been a problem and he'd be at K-state already.
-
Kid commits to KSU with coach telling him "we've got to place you in a Juco for a couple of years, then you're coming to KSU to play." Kid puts in his two years at Juco, but KSU coach now says "we really don't want or need you any more, sorry it's just not going to work out." Kid committed to KSU with every intention of playing there, coach then decides not bring the kid to KSU. Sucks for the kid. Not illegal, but unethical.
Hmmm...our coaches, and other coaches, should not have held a gun to those kids' heads to force their signature. Oh, you mean they signed for themselves and made their own decisions?
Christ...either you're an all out sock or an idiot.
So, according to you, this kid can go JC and as long as he makes his grades he can do whatever he wants...be an attitude problem, not workout, not perform...nothing. But it's unethical if KSU (OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM) does not take them back.
Let's use Nebraska as an example since you're prolly a Nubb sock. How about Wallace Franklin or Ricky Henry? Why did NU not re-sign Franklin and why will NU not re-sign Henry? Unethical Nubbs.
Happens everywhere...sounds like you should talk to somebody about it.
LOL..you still don't get that it's not even 61.
-
How come Brandon Walls isn't on there?
Wow.
-
Hasn't rivals consistently had our class in the 40's since 2001? Seems decently accurate.
It's not just how they rank the classes overall, it's how they rank the individual players in the class. They never know who the best players are and who the questionable players are. I mean don't even look at the rankings in the context of comparing to other schools' classes. Just take K-State classes completely isolated and look how they rank K-State players against each other. The guys they always say are good, suck...and vice-versa. I don't buy the theory that it's all about potential and we just got overacheiving scrubs and underachieving studs either. Snyder didn't coach Aaron Lockett, Terence Newman and Yamon Figurs to be the fastest players in college football. That was god given. Guys like Bishop, Quincy Morgan and Jeff Kelly didn't go from 2 star scrubs to NCAA All-Americans and NFL draft picks over a summer workout. On the other end of the spectrum, guys like Jerome Janet and Chris Boggas just weren't very good football players. It's the same story year after year after year. If you can find them, review the classes over the past 12 years. Look at who the 4 and 5 star guys are and look at who the 2 and zero star guys are. Then you'll see why I have no faith in Rivals evaluations on football players. It's pointless to even look at them. Basketball has been pretty good over that time though.
-
Kid commits to KSU with coach telling him "we've got to place you in a Juco for a couple of years, then you're coming to KSU to play." Kid puts in his two years at Juco, but KSU coach now says "we really don't want or need you any more, sorry it's just not going to work out." Kid committed to KSU with every intention of playing there, coach then decides not bring the kid to KSU. Sucks for the kid. Not illegal, but unethical.
Hmmm...our coaches, and other coaches, should not have held a gun to those kids' heads to force their signature. Oh, you mean they signed for themselves and made their own decisions?
Christ...either you're an all out sock or an idiot.
So, according to you, this kid can go JC and as long as he makes his grades he can do whatever he wants...be an attitude problem, not workout, not perform...nothing. But it's unethical if KSU (OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM) does not take them back.
Let's use Nebraska as an example since you're prolly a Nubb sock. How about Wallace Franklin or Ricky Henry? Why did NU not re-sign Franklin and why will NU not re-sign Henry? Unethical Nubbs.
Happens everywhere...sounds like you should talk to somebody about it.
LOL..you still don't get that it's not even 61.
Because Franklin dropped the ball academically (it will be a miracle if he makes it to ISU) and some people close to him said to stop recruiting him. As for Ricky, well he has some issues that probably became much clearer to the staff during his time up at North Dakota Science. Leave it at that. You're clearly not as in the know about Nebraska as you think Hatter.
-
Kid commits to KSU with coach telling him "we've got to place you in a Juco for a couple of years, then you're coming to KSU to play." Kid puts in his two years at Juco, but KSU coach now says "we really don't want or need you any more, sorry it's just not going to work out." Kid committed to KSU with every intention of playing there, coach then decides not bring the kid to KSU. Sucks for the kid. Not illegal, but unethical.
Hmmm...our coaches, and other coaches, should not have held a gun to those kids' heads to force their signature. Oh, you mean they signed for themselves and made their own decisions?
Christ...either you're an all out sock or an idiot.
So, according to you, this kid can go JC and as long as he makes his grades he can do whatever he wants...be an attitude problem, not workout, not perform...nothing. But it's unethical if KSU (OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM) does not take them back.
Let's use Nebraska as an example since you're prolly a Nubb sock. How about Wallace Franklin or Ricky Henry? Why did NU not re-sign Franklin and why will NU not re-sign Henry? Unethical Nubbs.
Happens everywhere...sounds like you should talk to somebody about it.
LOL..you still don't get that it's not even 61.
Because Franklin dropped the ball academically (it will be a miracle if he makes it to ISU) and some people close to him said to stop recruiting him. As for Ricky, well he has some issues that probably became much clearer to the staff during his time up at North Dakota Science. Leave it at that. You're clearly not as in the know about Nebraska as you think Hatter.
Wow. Talk about over someone's head.
-
Because Franklin dropped the ball academically (it will be a miracle if he makes it to ISU) and some people close to him said to stop recruiting him. As for Ricky, well he has some issues that probably became much clearer to the staff during his time up at North Dakota Science. Leave it at that. You're clearly not as in the know about Nebraska as you think Hatter.
that's exactly the point he was trying to make dumb ass.
:billypopcorn:
-
Many times a kid's placement at a juco is esentially a probationary period. If a kid demonstrates the desire to work on his academic progress while playing college football, it bodes well for him to continue that practice at the D1 level. If a kid with questionable academic history (in high school) continues to shrug off school at a juco, many coaches will feel it is not in the university's best interest to sign him. These kids being placed are aware of this, and they also know that the university they originally signed with has no legal rights over them once they sign with that juco. If the feeling is mutual, after two years, the kid may choose to resign, or he may choose to sign elsewhere. Being protected at a juco is only important if the kid does not want to talk to other schools. The coach can't keep him away from recruiters, but he can make it more difficult for recruiters to soliciate players.
-
Kid commits to KSU with coach telling him "we've got to place you in a Juco for a couple of years, then you're coming to KSU to play." Kid puts in his two years at Juco, but KSU coach now says "we really don't want or need you any more, sorry it's just not going to work out." Kid committed to KSU with every intention of playing there, coach then decides not bring the kid to KSU. Sucks for the kid. Not illegal, but unethical.
Hmmm...our coaches, and other coaches, should not have held a gun to those kids' heads to force their signature. Oh, you mean they signed for themselves and made their own decisions?
Christ...either you're an all out sock or an idiot.
So, according to you, this kid can go JC and as long as he makes his grades he can do whatever he wants...be an attitude problem, not workout, not perform...nothing. But it's unethical if KSU (OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM) does not take them back.
Let's use Nebraska as an example since you're prolly a Nubb sock. How about Wallace Franklin or Ricky Henry? Why did NU not re-sign Franklin and why will NU not re-sign Henry? Unethical Nubbs.
Happens everywhere...sounds like you should talk to somebody about it.
LOL..you still don't get that it's not even 61.
What does "all out sock" mean? I know it goes on at other universities, that's my point. And I see you're a fan of hyperbole. My point is if a kid does everything perfect at the Juco, KSU can still kick him to the curb. Even though the kid made a commitment to KSU and KSU made a commitment to him.
Take your job a McDonald's; they tell you they've got to place you in Sioux City for two years to start out, but after that they're bringing you to Chicago to the big time. You put in your time in Sioux City, doing everything right (mopping floors, getting fries that perfect crispy brown, not spitting on the food); but come the two years McDonald's says they really don't have any use for you anymore and now are you not only not going to Chicago but now you're without a job. Sure you can try and find a WhataBurger or Subway, but it sure isn't what you wanted when you made the initial committment to McDonald's.
Oh, and since you're all knowing on the recruiting tip. You earlier said Walls was being placed at a Juco. According to 'Waks', his mother says he'll be at KSU. We should trust you over his mother right. Because it's common knowledge to everyone that Walls is going Juco and then to KSU.
-
Walls hasn't qualified yet. That is what Hatter said. His mother said he still has the opportunity to qualify. Ofcourse his mother thinks he will pass this test. But if he doesn't, he will be going Juco.
-
He made no such distinction, at least not in this thread.
-
Oh, and since you're all knowing on the recruiting tip. You earlier said Walls was being placed at a Juco. According to 'Waks', his mother says he'll be at KSU. We should trust you over his mother right. Because it's common knowledge to everyone that Walls is going Juco and then to KSU.
Walls didn't appear on the roster...we assumed him to be one of the non-qualifiers. The update w/ his mother came out AFTER the start of this thread. Nobody is calling his mother a liar...sock.
-
You're a sock, ya silly kid.
-
Usually JUCO coaches will be happy to take placed players, so they'll usually encourage them to resign later on.