KSUFans Archives
Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: fatty fat fat on April 28, 2006, 02:09:32 PM
-
http://kansasstate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=539137
-
You can't even google Tyrone Sonnier.
:(
-
Absolutely embarrassing. We beat out UTEP!!! :jerkoff:
-
Is this as bad as when those two guys chose Texas St. over us?
Probably not.
So we got that going for us.
-
matthews has a vertical jump of 36 inches...
-
matthews has a vertical jump of 36 inches...
Cool! I bet he's great at dunking a basketball.
-
Thank God for Bob Huggins.
-
We're a team full of "sleepers." We're gonna be like one of those fantasy teams where the guy starts drafting "sleepers" in the second round, just so that if one or two have a good season he can brag about it. Meanwhile, the suckiness of the remaining sleepers that stay sleeping means he finishes in last place.
-
We're a team full of "sleepers." We're gonna be like one of those fantasy teams where the guy starts drafting "sleepers" in the second round, just so that if one or two have a good season he can brag about it. Meanwhile, the suckiness of the remaining sleepers that stay sleeping means he finishes in last place.
JORDYNELSONTERRENCENEWMANMARCUSWATTSHAHAHASTARSDONTMEANcrap....that's all i've got.
-
JORDYNELSONTERRENCENEWMANMARCUSWATTSHAHAHASTARSDONTMEANS**T....that's all i've got.
Exactly. :banghead:
-
Yeah ... look at how All World Stud Leon Jackson panned out for NU.
I've seen Matthews Scout Combine numbers and they're not big "inflaters" and they're pretty impressive.
According to Jayson Cuba's coach OU is asking him how strong his commit to KSU is, and Arkansas has been in on him as well.
I sure am glad everybody on here decided that they were D1 talent scouts.
-
Yeah ... look at how All World Stud Leon Jackson panned out for NU.
I've seen Matthews Scout Combine numbers and they're not big "inflaters" and they're pretty impressive.
According to Jayson Cuba's coach OU is asking him how strong his commit to KSU is, and Arkansas has been in on him as well.
I sure am glad everybody on here decided that they were D1 talent scouts.
Are you always friggin negative?????? :blank:
-
According to Jayson Cuba's coach OU is asking him how strong his commit to KSU is, and Arkansas has been in on him as well.
You're implying that OU has proven talent evaluators on their staff. *cough**Venables**cough*
Hey, maybe we got lucky.
-
So ah ... you're saying that Prince's staff doesn't know anything??
I don't get it. According to Rivals both of the latest commits were being recruited by D1 schools, several Big 12 and Big 10 Schools and schools like tcu. tcu probably could've won the Big 12 North Last year.
I've determined that college football recruiting is turning almost a bigger load of Bullcrap then College B-ball recruiting. With all these guys out there with their "ranking systems" who have no freaking coaching credentials at all.
You guys are letting the squawks who suddenly think they're all experts get to you. Ask them about guys like Nick Reid ... who the hell recruited Nick Reid ... no f_cking buddy that's who.
-
WOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:love: WELCOME KENDRICK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:love: WELCOME TYRONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys really need to learn how to properly receive news of commits. :rolleyes:
-
We have 13 commits.
The rest of the big 12 north has like 9 combined.
Are we really that much better recruiters....or are we recruiting guys w/o many options?
-
I've determined that college football recruiting is turning almost a bigger load of BullS**T then College B-ball recruiting. With all these guys out there with their "ranking systems" who have no freaking coaching credentials at all.
You got that right, Dax.
-
We have 13 commits.
The rest of the big 12 north has like 9 combined.
Are we really that much better recruiters....or are we recruiting guys w/o many options?
or is ron prince so "impressive" that they commit right away?
-
We have 13 commits.
The rest of the big 12 north has like 9 combined.
Are we really that much better recruiters....or are we recruiting guys w/o many options?
How do you know that those kids will not be recruited by other big name schools later?
Did you just decide you'd understand recruiting starting yesterday?
-
We have 13 commits.
The rest of the big 12 north has like 9 combined.
Are we really that much better recruiters....or are we recruiting guys w/o many options?
According to Rivals the two commits we got today were being by a combined 12-13 other schools.
Matthews is a 5-11 180 guys who runs legit 4.5 to sub 4.5 40's, has a 32 inch vertical. According to Rivals he was being recruited by KSU, Iowa State and Texas Tech out of the Big 12.
-
Somewhere on the baylor, washington state and vanderbilt boards the same arguements are being used.
-
Somewhere on the baylor, washington state and vanderbilt boards the same arguements are being used.
you forgot duke
but seriously the guy does seem pretty athletic and cuba is supposed to be a real stud. he didnt get very many carries last year at all.
-
Fatty ... did you suddenly think KSU was going to start landing every 5 star guy out there??
-
I didn't realize the ratings were out yet.
-
"Are you always friggin negative??????"
Didnt you start this thread 3Fat? Seriously, that is a lame callout. :blahblah:
-
plus how many big star recruits that kstate has had have panned out well for us anyways.
daniel davis, nick patton...
randy jordan was a 5 star recruit and he was at best a 3 star player for kstate.
look at this list and tell me how many of them became studs for kstate
http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=173&p=9&c=4&yr=2003
-
Fatty ... did you suddenly think KSU was going to start landing every 5 star guy out there??
No, I just expect to recruit better than any big 12 north team. (Except maybe Nebraska)
We didn't last year.
We probaly won't this year. (I.E...both ku commits have KSU offers)
-
We have 13 commits.
The rest of the big 12 north has like 9 combined.
Are we really that much better recruiters....or are we recruiting guys w/o many options?
According to Rivals the two commits we got today were being by a combined 12-13 other schools.
Matthews is a 5-11 180 guys who runs legit 4.5 to sub 4.5 40's, has a 32 inch vertical. According to Rivals he was being recruited by KSU, Iowa State and Texas Tech out of the Big 12.
How many offers?
-
Darren Kent also received interest from Indiana, and an offer from Mankato state.
-
Fatty ... did you suddenly think KSU was going to start landing every 5 star guy out there??
No, I just expect to recruit better than any big 12 north team. (Except maybe Nebraska)
We didn't last year.
We probaly won't this year. (I.E...both ku commits have KSU offers)
Well lets see. Leon Jackson ... was supposed to be all universe at NU ... bust.
Harrison Beck ... all galaxy ... if so, why are Cornholes scared crapless about the prospect of Taylor going down??
-
Fatty ... did you suddenly think KSU was going to start landing every 5 star guy out there??
No, I just expect to recruit better than any big 12 north team. (Except maybe Nebraska)
We didn't last year.
We probaly won't this year. (I.E...both ku commits have KSU offers)
Well lets see. Leon Jackson ... was supposed to be all universe at NU ... bust.
Harrison Beck ... all galaxy ... if so, why are Cornholes scared S**Tless about the prospect of Taylor going down??
Wow! Maybe we shouldn't even bother recruiting outside of Kansas, and avoid all players with any "stars" period.
-
Fatty ... did you suddenly think KSU was going to start landing every 5 star guy out there??
No, I just expect to recruit better than any big 12 north team. (Except maybe Nebraska)
We didn't last year.
We probaly won't this year. (I.E...both ku commits have KSU offers)
Well lets see. Leon Jackson ... was supposed to be all universe at NU ... bust.
Harrison Beck ... all galaxy ... if so, why are Cornholes scared S**Tless about the prospect of Taylor going down??
How, fantastic argument. Pluck random recruits to better your point. :jerkoff:
Try this one.
NU: 8-4 Alamo bowl champs. Preseason north favorites.
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
-
3fat, you are like nails on a chalkboard.
-
How, fantastic argument. Pluck random recruits to better your point. :jerkoff:
Try this one.
NU: 8-4 Alamo bowls. Preseason north champs.
Geezus, what a stupid argument that was.
:jerkoff:
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
You are negative about stupid sh1t. Like not enough concessions at a spring game, or spending money on some facility.
This is a bigger deal.
-
Fatty ... did you suddenly think KSU was going to start landing every 5 star guy out there??
No, I just expect to recruit better than any big 12 north team. (Except maybe Nebraska)
We didn't last year.
We probaly won't this year. (I.E...both ku commits have KSU offers)
Well lets see. Leon Jackson ... was supposed to be all universe at NU ... bust.
Harrison Beck ... all galaxy ... if so, why are Cornholes scared S**Tless about the prospect of Taylor going down??
How, fantastic argument. Pluck random recruits to better your point. :jerkoff:
Try this one.
NU: 8-4 Alamo bowl champs. Preseason north favorites.
Alamo Bowl based on:
Beating a 5-6 KSU team because KSU hit the QB late.
Beating a CU team that had quit.
Beating a Michigan Team that didn't want to be there and ended up getting rid of a bunch of coaches after the season. I work with a huge Michigan fan, and he was downright embarrassed about Michigan losing to Nebraska.
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
-
didnt they offer to demetrius bell?
-
Nice list of excuses there. If we went 8-4 and won the alamo bowl, I laugh my ass off at a 5-6 team that tired to spin it.
Bottomline. 8-4...Alamo bowl champions.
-
Why is it that you think recruiting is over after they commit?
Have Rusty and Fatty just come out from under a rock?
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
Bullcrap. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
-
Nice list of excuses there. If we went 8-4 and won the alamo bowl, I laugh my ass off at a 5-6 team that tired to spin it.
Bottomline. 8-4...Alamo bowl champions.
Nobody is spinning anything Fatty. Hell yeah I would want KSU to be in a bowl game. But I am not ready to declare NU all world just yet. Not when they got bitch slapped by both ku and MU, and needed a cheap ass officials call to beat KSU on their home turf.
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
BullS**T. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
"My coach told me that Arkansas called to see about recruiting me. Also, Oklahoma called and told me they had a coach in Wichita and he would drive up to see me if there was any chance of my commitment wasn't solid. Coach (Brant) Glann told them my commitment to K-State was strong, so they didn't even come up to the school."
-
"Lamark and Coach Franklin pointed out Michael Keck to me," Cuba said. "They told me how good a player he is and they told me that he was a guy that we would love to get on the team, too. Hopefully it works out to get him."
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
BullS**T. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
And again.. WHO SAYS THEY WON'T BE OFFERED LATER?
-
LaMark Brown has offers from:
ku, Nebraska, Missouri and Indiana.
-
...Hopefully it works out...
Kind of sums up how I feel about the Ron Prince experiment.
-
Keep going NC. Outside of Lamarak and Cuba....who else can you make an argument for?
-
plus how many big star recruits that kstate has had have panned out well for us anyways.
daniel davis, nick patton...
randy jordan was a 5 star recruit and he was at best a 3 star player for kstate.
look at this list and tell me how many of them became studs for kstate
http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=173&p=9&c=4&yr=2003
what a brutal class that was...way to capitalize on that 2002 year. no wonder we are where we are now.
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
BullS**T. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
And again.. WHO SAYS THEY WON'T BE OFFERED LATER?
They might.
As last minute fallback plans for teams like Iowa State.
You don't honestly think Prince is smarter than the rest of the Big XII coaches, do you?
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
BullS**T. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
And again.. WHO SAYS THEY WON'T BE OFFERED LATER?
They might.
As last minute fallback plans for teams like Iowa State.
You don't honestly think Prince is smarter than the rest of the Big XII coaches, do you?
well he does read a lot of books.
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
BullS**T. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
And again.. WHO SAYS THEY WON'T BE OFFERED LATER?
They might.
As last minute fallback plans for teams like Iowa State.
You don't honestly think Prince is smarter than the rest of the Big XII coaches, do you?
scary smarter
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
BullS**T. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
And again.. WHO SAYS THEY WON'T BE OFFERED LATER?
They might.
As last minute fallback plans for teams like Iowa State.
You don't honestly think Prince is smarter than the rest of the Big XII coaches, do you?
YOU GUYS ARE STUPID. Coaches evaluate and recruit their own states first, before they start looking at other areas. Exceptions would include Texas and the like that automatically start recruiting 5 star players no matter where they are from. Of course several of our KS kids and MO kids havent had many offers, not many schools start out looking here because THOSE SCHOOLS ARE NOT HERE!
Its like you guys have never followed spring recruitment period before.
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
BullS**T. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
And again.. WHO SAYS THEY WON'T BE OFFERED LATER?
They might.
As last minute fallback plans for teams like Iowa State.
You don't honestly think Prince is smarter than the rest of the Big XII coaches, do you?
YOU GUYS ARE STUPID. Coaches evaluate and recruit their own states first, before they start looking at other areas. Exceptions would include Texas and the like that automatically start recruiting 5 star players no matter where they are from. Of course several of our KS kids and MO kids havent had many offers, not many schools start out looking here because THOSE SCHOOLS ARE NOT HERE!
Its like you guys have never followed spring recruitment period before.
So you don't think he's smarter than the rest of the Big XII, just Bill Snyder.
:popcorn:
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
BullS**T. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
And again.. WHO SAYS THEY WON'T BE OFFERED LATER?
They might.
As last minute fallback plans for teams like Iowa State.
You don't honestly think Prince is smarter than the rest of the Big XII coaches, do you?
YOU GUYS ARE STUPID. Coaches evaluate and recruit their own states first, before they start looking at other areas. Exceptions would include Texas and the like that automatically start recruiting 5 star players no matter where they are from. Of course several of our KS kids and MO kids havent had many offers, not many schools start out looking here because THOSE SCHOOLS ARE NOT HERE!
Its like you guys have never followed spring recruitment period before.
i think the obvious problem with that is only half the recruits for next year are from kansas.
-
According to scouts, we have offered 10 KS kids and 11 MO kids. Anything else?
-
offerred but committed is...
http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=173&p=9&c=8&yr=2007
-
"So you don't think he's smarter than the rest of the Big XII, just Bill Snyder."
We can't say with any certainty what Bill Snyder actually did during the spring because even when he got commits, he never announced them early.
-
"So you don't think he's smarter than the rest of the Big XII, just Bill Snyder."
We can't say with any certainty what Bill Snyder actually did during the spring because even when he got commits, he never announced them early.
No crap, no one can.
-
Last I checked Arkansas, Missouri and Texas were outside of Kansas.
Geezus ... to think people on PI think I am negative.
Seriously, I would like to know how many Big XII schools have offerred our commits. A few offerred Lamark Brown. Has a Big XII extended an offer to ANY of our other commits?
None.
Irrelevant.
BullS**T. We are competing against the Big XII. A player with multiple Big XII offers is generally better than a player with a "Thank God, I get to play D1" Big XII offer.
And again.. WHO SAYS THEY WON'T BE OFFERED LATER?
They might.
As last minute fallback plans for teams like Iowa State.
You don't honestly think Prince is smarter than the rest of the Big XII coaches, do you?
Ok, that was probably the most cynical answer you've ever given, one not based in reality.
The issue here is that you guys are viewing this as a school vs. school issue, but then you have an out if it's not a real big school. The schools you want to compete against doesn't necessarily make the recruit any better.
Remember, no one wanted Jon McGraw. We got him. ku wanted Sproles, but no one else did. Ell Roberson was wanted by Nebraska but not other schools in the Big 12.
Interesting how we cherry pick our recruits, but you can't seem to back up your premise.
:popcorn:
-
damn, prince was projected to have a top 20 recruiting class this year. it's not going to happen :crybaby:
you're supposed to go for the studs early in the recruiting season, and then fill it out with sleepers late. not the other way around :banghead:
prince can do so much better than this.
-
Yup...that Vince Young...#1 player in the nation...where is he now?
Oh wait...he just finished his college career as one the greatest QB's of all time.
:jerkoff:
-
Yup...that Vince Young...#1 player in the nation...where is he now?
Oh wait...he just finished his college career as one the greatest QB's of all time.
:jerkoff:
:sleep:
-
Reggie Bush? #1 recruit?
#1 pick in NFL draft
:jerkoff:
-
Reggie Bush? #1 recruit?
#1 pick in NFL draft
:jerkoff:
:sleep:
Terence Newman.. 2 star, Salina KS.
#5 in the draft.
-
Geezus ... I can't believe this thread.
Kevin Lockett ... 1 D1 offer, Mark Simonaeu ... maybe a couple of offers, Darren Howard ... a 200lb DE, Nyle Wiren ... I don't think anybody but KSU offered him, Darren Sproles ... offer from ku, Newman ... ku and KSU, that's about it, Lilja ... KSU and maybe one other ... etc. etc. etc.
All World can't miss .... Frank Murphy, Daniel Davis.
KSU is still involved with a bunch of kids lots of people want already: Keck, Hundredtmark etc. etc.
-
Yup...teams that recruit well usually finish last.
Like TexASS! Oh wait....national champs.
-
Yup...teams that recruit well usually finish last.
Like TexASS! Oh wait....national champs.
Good one. How many years did they win the proverbial Recruiting MNC?
How long did it take them?
Will they repeat?
Was Vince Young the reason they won or because of coaching?
it's incredible how short sighted you are in your understanding of football.
:poundon:
-
It's not a perfect correlation dumbass.
But it's a damned good indicator.
Texas and OU...each have recruited the best the past 6 years...each are the kings of the big 12 the past 6 years.
-
It not a perfect correlation dumbass.
But it's a damned good indicator.
Texas and OU...each have recruited the best the past 6 years...each are the kings of the big 12 the past 6 years.
OU won their NC with Blake's players. Stoops has three Big 12 Championships. Do you think Coaching plays a bigger role than just recruiting or not?
BTW: Texas has not been the King of the Big 12 until last year.
I'm pretty sure, that Texas will not repeat.
-
OU and Texas consistently yield top 10 recruiting classes.
They also consistently field top 10 teams.
Get it?
-
OU and Texas consistently yield top 10 recruiting classes.
They also consistently field top 10 teams.
Get it?
That isn't the contention you were making.
You're saying our recruiting is going to make us into a Baylor, without any fact. Now you're claiming we can be a Top 10 team primarily with recruiting.
No one says that recruiting is not a part of the equation, but just how much is it? Texas isn't getting into the Top 10 consistently with just recruiting. If you base it on recruiting only, Florida should have won more games than they did last year, and USC should have three peated and will contend for the NC the next four years. OU had great classes with Blake, but it took another coach to get them there.
The problem is, the evaluation is WAY too early. By your own methods of evaluation, KSU is destined to finish last in the Big 12 north the next three years. For your sake, let's hope you're right.
-
This has gotten funny at this juncture.
The people on this board who haven't watched any film of any of these guys ... are now being held mentally hostage by a bunch fans from other schools who wouldn't know a D1 propsect if he came and took a dump on their kitchen table.
Fatty and Rusty and others = OWNED
I just went and watched the video Colton Freeze again. I can tell you exactly why KSU went after him ... watching what he's asked to do at Liberty looks EXACTLY like the things KSU is going to ask him to do, and he does them well.
Watching the film on Aufner, Kirk and Freeze looks like I am watching lineman drills at KSU.
-
That's the entire point of the recruiting issue.
The stats, the stars and pictures aren't the only thing coaches evaluate. The film tells a lot about the players and the coaches talking to the HS coaches about how they run their program. These are the things that make the other schools come in late.
-
That's the entire point of the recruiting issue.
The stats, the stars and pictures aren't the only thing coaches evaluate. The film tells a lot about the players and the coaches talking to the HS coaches about how they run their program. These are the things that make the other schools come in late.
So we can fairly conclude that Prince is doing none of those evaluations.
-
All the final evaluations before the offer is made go through him.
There's a process in place very similar to an NFL draft board.
-
That's the entire point of the recruiting issue.
The stats, the stars and pictures aren't the only thing coaches evaluate. The film tells a lot about the players and the coaches talking to the HS coaches about how they run their program. These are the things that make the other schools come in late.
So we can fairly conclude that Prince is doing none of those evaluations.
Is this where I get to say that you made an evaluation on our Spring Game and never saw it?
-
That's the entire point of the recruiting issue.
The stats, the stars and pictures aren't the only thing coaches evaluate. The film tells a lot about the players and the coaches talking to the HS coaches about how they run their program. These are the things that make the other schools come in late.
So we can fairly conclude that Prince is doing none of those evaluations.
Is this where I get to say that you made an evaluation on our Spring Game and never saw it?
No, go with the "Your motherboard is gonna fail" type smack this time.
-
That's the entire point of the recruiting issue.
The stats, the stars and pictures aren't the only thing coaches evaluate. The film tells a lot about the players and the coaches talking to the HS coaches about how they run their program. These are the things that make the other schools come in late.
So we can fairly conclude that Prince is doing none of those evaluations.
Is this where I get to say that you made an evaluation on our Spring Game and never saw it?
No, go with the "Your motherboard is gonna fail" type smack this time.
Nice. In both cases, you lose.
:loly: :chirp: :violin: :lol: :blank:
-
My 'evaluation' of your QBs and their spring game details stems from comments made by Kstate fans.
So if you disagree than take it up with your own fellow fans who said Meier was best and knew what he was doing.
-
That's the entire point of the recruiting issue.
The stats, the stars and pictures aren't the only thing coaches evaluate. The film tells a lot about the players and the coaches talking to the HS coaches about how they run their program. These are the things that make the other schools come in late.
Once again, KSU fans are insinuating Prince is smarter than the rest of the Big XII. I don't understand this one bit.
-
It not a perfect correlation dumbass.
But it's a damned good indicator.
Texas and OU...each have recruited the best the past 6 years...each are the kings of the big 12 the past 6 years.
OU won their NC with Blake's players. Stoops has three Big 12 Championships. Do you think Coaching plays a bigger role than just recruiting or not?
BTW: Texas has not been the King of the Big 12 until last year.
I'm pretty sure, that Texas will not repeat.
I just want to point out that this is pretty much the worst argument ever. Can anyone remember the last time one of these teams won less than 8 games?
-
Stoops first year in '99 ou won 7, and I think ut won 4 or 5 in Jackovic's last year in '97.
ou had to bust balls to get 8 wins last year with their awesome recruiting classes.
-
Stoops first year in '99 ou won 7, and I think ut won 4 or 5 in Jackovic's last year in '97.
ou had to bust balls to get 8 wins last year with their awesome recruiting classes.
Yep - we should actually avoid good recruiting classes, otherwise we'll end up in the crapter like OU, USC, Florida, LSU, Miami, Ohio State, and UT.
-
Stoops first year in '99 ou won 7, and I think ut won 4 or 5 in Jackovic's last year in '97.
ou had to bust balls to get 8 wins last year with their awesome recruiting classes.
Yep - we should actually avoid good recruiting classes, otherwise we'll end up in the S**Tter like OU, USC, Florida, LSU, Miami, Ohio State, and UT.
Can't disagree that good recruiting classes make things easier. But, most importantly is getting the recruits -- no matter if they're the greatest or worst recruiting class -- on the same page to develop good team chemistry and to accept coaching.
ou last year is a good example of having all a bunch of "out of this world recruits" who couldn't do jack s#@t early in the season because they believed their own hype. nu is another example -- greatest recruiting class in 2005 and what did they do last year? Got smoked by ku, mu and needed a brain cramped, 4-star, k-state DE recruit to self-implode to substain their drive to win the game against the last place team in the North.
Now, nu's two prized '05 recruits -- Beck and Lucky -- are drawing the ire of the classiest fans in college football because they can't beat out a pencil armed juco QB and a plodding RB from TX for starting jobs.
-
Again. It's not a perfect correlation. OU may have struggled last year...but they are still 60-12 in the last 6 years.
Same with Texas. They may go 9-4 next year.....but so what...that is now a "down year" for them because they recruit so well
-
That's the entire point of the recruiting issue.
The stats, the stars and pictures aren't the only thing coaches evaluate. The film tells a lot about the players and the coaches talking to the HS coaches about how they run their program. These are the things that make the other schools come in late.
Once again, KSU fans are insinuating Prince is smarter than the rest of the Big XII. I don't understand this one bit.
Smarter? That's your take on it to make your argument sound good, and is way off base.
Prince is starting earlier than Snyder. That's what's happening.
-
It not a perfect correlation dumbass.
But it's a damned good indicator.
Texas and OU...each have recruited the best the past 6 years...each are the kings of the big 12 the past 6 years.
OU won their NC with Blake's players. Stoops has three Big 12 Championships. Do you think Coaching plays a bigger role than just recruiting or not?
BTW: Texas has not been the King of the Big 12 until last year.
I'm pretty sure, that Texas will not repeat.
I just want to point out that this is pretty much the worst argument ever. Can anyone remember the last time one of these teams won less than 8 games?
The worst argument is this statement you just made. You're implying that unless we recruit players that have offers, RIGHT NOW, from the top schools in the country, we're going to become Baylor. You cannot make that argument stick at all, it's an opinion you and fatty back up with isolated examples and scenarios where recruiting was not the major factor, but one part of it. You're indicting the system because of your own viewpoint of how someone should recruit when:
1. Prince's recruiting system is very different than Snyder.
2. Your evaluation of talent is based not on the film, but by the number of offers that a kid is receiving EVEN THOUGH most schools are still evaluating talent.
3. Kansas and Missouri kids are not capable of becoming better.
4. Your conclusions are based on the theory that you can look at other schools and see what they are doing, and yet, you all have been part of the "Kids won't come to Manhattan" group. You admire what other schools do, and do not take into consideration the hurdles KSU has gone through to be competitive.
5. You indict the abilty of this coaching staff without ever seeing the results as of yet. Interestingly, you seem to knock the process without ever knowing exactly how the coaching staff does it's job.
In essense, the only thing you're doing is establishing a standard on what KSU should be doing in competition with other schools, even trying to tell us that you know how to evaluate the talent better than they do. Do you think we should just offer every kid OU, Texas, USC, Miami, Florida, Florida St. do simply to be in the running? Do you even understand what it takes to recruit kids?
:ustupid:
-
Again. It's not a perfect correlation. OU may have struggled last year...but they are still 60-12 in the last 6 years.
Same with Texas. They may go 9-4 next year.....but so what...that is now a "down year" for them because they recruit so well
You backpeddle any more, your argument is going away. You haven't shown that any of the kids we have gotten so far won't get us to where we want to be.
Sad, little man you are.
-
I guess we should just fire Prince now huh? What ever happened to the we don't really know how good a recruiting class is until 2 - 3 years down the road. Now we are bashing on the recruiting class months before its even signed?
You (fatty, Rusty et. al.) need to chill out and not assume that just because Prince is getting commits long before Snyder that something is wrong. Remember Snyder told recruits NOT to commit until they had looked at other schools. Let's let Prince at least sign his first full class before we start claiming the sky is falling....or maybe play one real game.....or one conference game.....or one season. Quit lettin Rivals and the so called recruiting experts form your opinions. Feel free to use your minds and do your own analysis once in awhile.
-
My point, is that stars DO matter.
Recruiting rankings DO matter.
You guys would go apesh1t if Aufner, Cuba were both 4-stars....as you should.
4-star players=Usually turn out to be better than 2-star players.
Get it yet?
-
Who do they matter to, fatty? You?
-
Nearly everyone on Wabash Station.
-
This isn't the wabash station.
-
O.K. :confused:
-
My point, is that stars DO matter.
Recruiting rankings DO matter.
You guys would go apesh1t if Aufner, Cuba were both 4-stars....as you should.
4-star players=Usually turn out to be better than 2-star players.
Get it yet?
Fatty go compare our recruiting rankings vs are actual poll rankins for the last 10 years and see what you find out.
-
I'm sure I'll find out that teams that recruit well usually finish higher than teams that don't.
-
"Nearly everyone on Wabash Station."
Yeah. "Marvin and Malcolm in the Middle" a couple of years back didn't exactly work out.
-
I'm sure I'll find out that teams that recruit well usually finish higher than teams that don't.
Get at it.
-
It's funny as hell to me that, when we were winning, stars didn't mean anything and now they mean everything. I can't help but feel that fatty is only like eighteen years old and doesn't really understand the game of college football yet. Let's wait to pass judgement on this class til the stars are actually passed out on the recruiting sites;(unfortunately, they are pretty much the authorities on this type of thing as far as we know) or, even more intelligently, lets wait for 4-5 years and see what type of careers these kids actually have at KSU before we relegate them to second class status. Also, it seems to me that ISU has been pretty decent the last few years, so I don't believe that kids offered schollys by them are exactly something to sneeze at.
-
so now it's ok to be as good as ISU? if they are what you consider good at developing players, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE AS GOOD AS FREAKIN' ISU?
-
so now it's ok to be as good as ISU? if they are what you consider good at developing players, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE AS GOOD AS FREAKIN' ISU?
I don't get this twist in the argument.
What makes you think we're going to be ISU?
-
We recruited very well when the stoopsie bros were around.
-
We recruited very well when the stoopsie bros were around.
Arguably the most subjective comment made.
Care to back that up?
-
NFL draft picks.
What, did Snyder suddenly fail to develop players? Notice how after the class of 99 (2003 seniors) we immediatly went down the crapper?
-
NFL draft picks.
What, did Snyder suddenly fail to develop players? Notice how after the class of 99 (2003 seniors) we immediatly went down the crapper?
Yes, but consider. The 2001 class was Snyder's biggest class, star wise (remember Daniel Davis?) and it went into the crapper.
The 2001 team, our worst team had the most NFL drafts, including Jon McGraw.. a walk on.
Notice how the quality of players is dependent on the players accepting the system and the coach. Remember who John Blake was?
You're too focused on recruiting stars, and not enough about the systems to where those players are going to go, and the coaches that make up that system.
-
so now it's ok to be as good as ISU? if they are what you consider good at developing players, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE AS GOOD AS FREAKIN' ISU?
I was responding to an earlier post (which I can't seem to find)about of the kids we've offered so far being the kind of players ISU picks up as safety players at the end of the recruiting period. I never said ISU was a model of how to develop players, or that I aspire for our team to be as good as theirs; all I said is they continue to finish near the top of the Big XII North every year so their players must not be that bad. Please read the posts thoroughly before getting all excited and typing in caps like somebody just insulted your mom.
-
so now it's ok to be as good as ISU? if they are what you consider good at developing players, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE AS GOOD AS FREAKIN' ISU?
I was responding to an earlier post (which I can't seem to find)about of the kids we've offered so far being the kind of players ISU picks up as safety players at the end of the recruiting period. I never said ISU was a model of how to develop players, or that I aspire for our team to be as good as theirs; all I said is they continue to finish near the top of the Big XII North every year so their players must not be that bad. Please read the posts thoroughly before getting all excited and typing in caps like somebody just insulted your mom.
Iowa State sucks.
-
1. Prince's recruiting system is very different than Snyder.
As it should be.
2. Your evaluation of talent is based not on the film, but by the number of offers that a kid is receiving EVEN THOUGH most schools are still evaluating talent.
Why are we offerring earlier? Are our coaches better at evaluating talent than "most schools"?
3. Kansas and Missouri kids are not capable of becoming better.
WTF?
4. Your conclusions are based on the theory that you can look at other schools and see what they are doing, and yet, you all have been part of the "Kids won't come to Manhattan" group. You admire what other schools do, and do not take into consideration the hurdles KSU has gone through to be competitive.
WTF? I've never been a part of that group. I think a good recruiter isn't afraid of any school. I thought we had that when Prince stole Freeman from Nebraska. Instead, our coaching staff is thinking, "We have to offer every other Big XII schools backup plans early, otherwise we'd have no chance at them. I mean c'mon, it's Ames vs. Manhattan! How can we compete?!?"
5. You indict the abilty of this coaching staff without ever seeing the results as of yet. Interestingly, you seem to knock the process without ever knowing exactly how the coaching staff does it's job.
Yep. Because recruiting right now makes little &@#%ing sense to anyone who looks at it without bias.
In essense, the only thing you're doing is establishing a standard on what KSU should be doing in competition with other schools, even trying to tell us that you know how to evaluate the talent better than they do.
No, but you're insinuating that KSU's coaches know how to evaulate talent better than the Big XII. But yeah, it would be nice if more than one of our commits had an offer from another Big XII school.
Do you think we should just offer every kid OU, Texas, USC, Miami, Florida, Florida St. do simply to be in the running? Do you even understand what it takes to recruit kids?
Of course not...let's steal someone away from Iowa State or Baylor before we get too crazy.
-
First of all, what makes you think our coaches CAN'T evaluate players better than the rest of the Big 12?
This coaching staff has only been on the job for four months and the priority is recruiting. Just when do you think it's OK for them to go out and start evaluating kids?
-
I think KSU should've waited until all these kids went to various summer camps, and then walked away with multiple offers from Texas A&M, Wisconsin and others ... and then started getting heavily involved.
-
That's reasonable.
-
multiple offers from Texas A&M, Wisconsin and others ...
There is NOTHING to indicate that.
-
multiple offers from Texas A&M, Wisconsin and others ...
There is NOTHING to indicate that.
Oh I get it, you now subscribe to the Cornhole/Squawklogic that just because a kid has a name of a school on his list, you just can't read to much into that afterall, nobody else was going to offer any of those kids (Sincerely GrayHawker).
-
Prince has been recruiting no-names.
Our 3 biggest recruits (high school) in the 2006 class....were Patton, Kendall, and Freeman.
Two were recruited by Snyder. Those were his only two commits.
-
Prince has been recruiting no-names.
Our 3 biggest recruits (high school) in the 2006 class....were Patton, Kendall, and Freeman.
Two were recruited by Snyder. Those were his only two commits.
"I was also being heavily recruited by Arkansas," Whitmore said.
A.J. Whitmore
Fatty responds, "you're lying kid".
Tennessee, Tulsa, Oklahoma State, LSU, Missouri and Memphis were also recruiting Whitmore.
-
Again, we'll see when the stars come out how truthfull these recruits are being.
-
Again, we'll see when the stars come out how truthfull these recruits are being.
Fatty reaffirms that Jeremy Crabtree knows more then the KSU coaching staff.
Jeremy Crabtee former KC Star Reporter, Rivals recruiting "expert", years coaching football ... NONE.
-
They've been proven to show excellent correlations between recruiting success and on the field success.
Why can't this register with you?
-
"There is NOTHING to indicate that."
"Again, we'll see when the stars come out how truthfull these recruits are being."
So, which is it? Are you going to wait and see, in indict right now. Your reasoning is not consistent.
-
I'm predicting when the stars come out, our class will be an utter embarrassment.
-
Weiser was such an idiot. Why didn't he hire Crabtree?
-
Colorado had the Top 10 class in 2002. Wow, they've really been huge on the national scene haven't they??
Arizona State had the #18 class in 2002 ... and Dirk Koetter clings to his job ... barely.
Arizona had the #25 Class in 2002 ... John Mackovic ... fired 2 years later.
Texas A&M had the #23 Class in 2002 .... oh boy, they've been awesome havn't they??
Miss. State has the #17 Class in 2002 ... Jackie Sherrill forced to resign 2 years later.
KSU #14 class in 2002 ... 2004 last place Big 12 North, 2005 Last place Big 12 North.
-
Colorado had the Top 10 class in 2002. Wow, they've really been huge on the national scene haven't they??
Arizona State had the #18 class in 2002 ... and Dirk Koetter clings to his job ... barely.
Arizona had the #25 Class in 2002 ... John Mackovic ... fired 2 years later.
Texas A&M had the #23 Class in 2002 .... oh boy, they've been awesome havn't they??
Miss. State has the #17 Class in 2002 ... Jackie Sherrill forced to resign 2 years later.
Jesus, are you trying to argue that recruiting rankings simply don't matter?
-
Its settled then... the higher ranking of your commits, the more likely your team is to suck.
-
Colorado had the Top 10 class in 2002. Wow, they've really been huge on the national scene haven't they??
Arizona State had the #18 class in 2002 ... and Dirk Koetter clings to his job ... barely.
Arizona had the #25 Class in 2002 ... John Mackovic ... fired 2 years later.
Texas A&M had the #23 Class in 2002 .... oh boy, they've been awesome havn't they??
Miss. State has the #17 Class in 2002 ... Jackie Sherrill forced to resign 2 years later.
Jesus, are you trying to argue that recruiting rankings simply don't matter?
Look I added KSU ... #14 in 2002 Fatty, how's that worked out so far??
You argue that's all that matters ... the rankings aren't even out on these kids, it's 9 months until Febuary 2007 and you've already determined KSU's recruiting class sucks.
-
Its settled then... the higher ranking of your commits, the more likely your team is to suck.
That's not what I am saying ... and dear god please don't tell ANYONE you go to KSU ... no one.
-
This is a really spirited thread. It's got great points on both sides.
On a side note, I just today noticed the "news box" at the top of the page. Funny stuff. :)
-
Washington #19 recruiting class in 2002 ... they suck!!
-
What part of "FOR THE MOST PART" recruiting rankings are a good indicator of future success did you miss?
-
Its settled then... the higher ranking of your commits, the more likely your team is to suck.
That's not what I am saying ... and dear god please don't tell ANYONE you go to KSU ... no one.
That appears to be the common theme from you and Rodless so far.
-
D'Brickashaw Ferguson --- 2 D1 offers, #4 in the NFL draft in 2006.
-
What part of "FOR THE MOST PART" recruiting rankings are a good indicator of future success did you miss?
-
Its settled then... the higher ranking of your commits, the more likely your team is to suck.
That's not what I am saying ... and dear god please don't tell ANYONE you go to KSU ... no one.
That appears to be the common theme from you and Rodless so far.
You are the quitisential dumbass.
-
What part of:
It's 9 months until Febuary 2007 do you not understand Fatty??
-
What part of "FOR THE MOST PART" recruiting rankings are a good indicator of future success did you miss?
You meant to say "generally"
For the most part doesn't support your argument.
-
West Virginia ... #37 Recruiting Class in 2002 ... I think they just scored another TD on Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
Texas Tech ... #47 Recruiting Class in 2002 ... yeah, they just scored another TD on the #14 recruiting class in 2002, good old KSU.
-
What part of:
It's 9 months until Febuary 2007 do you not understand Fatty??
I do understand that. It's a decent point. I'm saying I doubt these guys will be ranked very high.
Please PLEASE stop trying to make the "stars don't matter" argument. It's retarded.
-
Its settled then... the higher ranking of your commits, the more likely your team is to suck.
That's not what I am saying ... and dear god please don't tell ANYONE you go to KSU ... no one.
That appears to be the common theme from you and Rodless so far.
You made that up. That was pretty clever. Too bad that's not what we're saying.
-
West Virginia ... #37 Recruiting Class in 2002 ... I think they just scored another TD on Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
Texas Tech ... #47 Recruiting Class in 2002 ... yeah, they just scored another TD on the #14 recruiting class in 2002, good old KSU.
Georgia was ranked in the Top 10 weren't they?
-
What part of:
It's 9 months until Febuary 2007 do you not understand Fatty??
I do understand that. It's a decent point. I'm saying I doubt these guys will be ranked very high.
Please PLEASE stop trying to make the "stars don't matter" argument. It's retarded.
STARS DO NOT MATTER EXCEPT TO PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT STARS.
-
West Virginia ... #37 Recruiting Class in 2002 ... I think they just scored another TD on Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
Texas Tech ... #47 Recruiting Class in 2002 ... yeah, they just scored another TD on the #14 recruiting class in 2002, good old KSU.
Georgia was ranked in the Top 10 weren't they?
Yep.
Plus when have I said stars don't matter, when you find the "star" rankings of our current commits you let us know, there are NONE right now fatty ... NONE!!
-
West Virginia ... #37 Recruiting Class in 2002 ... I think they just scored another TD on Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
Texas Tech ... #47 Recruiting Class in 2002 ... yeah, they just scored another TD on the #14 recruiting class in 2002, good old KSU.
Georgia was ranked in the Top 10 weren't they?
Yep.
Plus when have I said stars don't matter, when you find the "star" rankings of our current commits you let us know, there are NONE right now fatty ... NONE!!
Oops.. West Virginia just scored again.
-
What part of:
It's 9 months until Febuary 2007 do you not understand Fatty??
I do understand that. It's a decent point. I'm saying I doubt these guys will be ranked very high.
Please PLEASE stop trying to make the "stars don't matter" argument. It's retarded.
STARS DO NOT MATTER EXCEPT TO PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT STARS.
So theres no difference between a 1-star and a 5-star?
-
Fresno State .... #53 recruiting class in 2002, are they done Ass Raping KSU yet??
-
What part of:
It's 9 months until Febuary 2007 do you not understand Fatty??
I do understand that. It's a decent point. I'm saying I doubt these guys will be ranked very high.
Please PLEASE stop trying to make the "stars don't matter" argument. It's retarded.
STARS DO NOT MATTER EXCEPT TO PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT STARS.
So theres no difference between a 1-star and a 5-star?
Depends on the coach.
-
tcu ... #72 recruiting class in 2002, was that tcu I saw beating the dog meat out of OU in Owen Field??
-
tcu ... #72 recruiting class in 2002, was that tcu I saw beating the dog meat out of OU in Owen Field??
Bomar fell down again. 5 star.. tee hee..
-
tcu ... #72 recruiting class in 2002, was that tcu I saw beating the dog meat out of OU in Owen Field??
Bomar fell down again. 5 star.. tee hee..
Utah ... #77 Recruiting class in 2002 ... that really worked out poorly for Urban Meyer.
-
What part of:
It's 9 months until Febuary 2007 do you not understand Fatty??
I do understand that. It's a decent point. I'm saying I doubt these guys will be ranked very high.
Please PLEASE stop trying to make the "stars don't matter" argument. It's retarded.
STARS DO NOT MATTER EXCEPT TO PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT STARS.
So theres no difference between a 1-star and a 5-star?
Depends on the coach.
So you really think that Prince, a guy who has never been a head coach ever before, just walked into the Big 12 with a completely different recruiting philosophy than the rest of the entire Big 12 and will take his single offer players all the way to the big 12 championship?
You're not concerned about how recruiting is going so far at all?
-
tcu ... #72 recruiting class in 2002, was that tcu I saw beating the dog meat out of OU in Owen Field??
Bomar fell down again. 5 star.. tee hee..
Yep ... another Bomar Sack ... by the #79 recruiting class, agaist the #4 recruiting class.
Viriginia Tech ... #45 Recruiting class in 2002.
-
What part of:
It's 9 months until Febuary 2007 do you not understand Fatty??
I do understand that. It's a decent point. I'm saying I doubt these guys will be ranked very high.
Please PLEASE stop trying to make the "stars don't matter" argument. It's retarded.
STARS DO NOT MATTER EXCEPT TO PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT STARS.
So theres no difference between a 1-star and a 5-star?
Depends on the coach.
So you really think that Prince, a guy who has never been a head coach ever before, just walked into the Big 12 with a completely different recruiting philosophy than the rest of the entire Big 12 and will take his single offer players all the way to the big 12 championship?
You're not concerned about how recruiting is going so far at all?
Who the F decided it was a completely different recruiting philosophy??
Squawks??
-
NC State #7 Recruiting Class in 2003 ... Middle of the Pack ACC team ever since.
-
NC State #7 Recruiting Class in 2003 ... Middle of the Pack ACC team ever since.
North Carolina #13 Recruiting Class in 2003 .... lower tier ACC team ever since.
-
Stanford ... #25 Recruiting Class in 2003 ... they suck.
Oklahoma State #15 Recruiting Class in 2003.
-
What part of:
It's 9 months until Febuary 2007 do you not understand Fatty??
I do understand that. It's a decent point. I'm saying I doubt these guys will be ranked very high.
Please PLEASE stop trying to make the "stars don't matter" argument. It's retarded.
STARS DO NOT MATTER EXCEPT TO PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT STARS.
So theres no difference between a 1-star and a 5-star?
Depends on the coach.
So you really think that Prince, a guy who has never been a head coach ever before, just walked into the Big 12 with a completely different recruiting philosophy than the rest of the entire Big 12 and will take his single offer players all the way to the big 12 championship?
You're not concerned about how recruiting is going so far at all?
Who the F decided it was a completely different recruiting philosophy??
Squawks??
Do you see anyone else with 13 commits from recruits that have only your offer to consider? They obviously don't think other offers are coming if they are so quick to commit to Kstate.
No one else is grabbing up filler scholarships already.
Maybe Prince will pull some scholarships out from under people later.
-
(http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/1695/recruit6sk.jpg)
EDIT..FLordia doesn't have one.
9-1.
-
(http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/1695/recruit6sk.jpg)
OMG.
So now it's BCS appearances?
Geezus..
-
Yea, a team that goes to a BCS bowl usually has more success than a team that doesn't.
-
If Nu, or ku, or any other Big 12 team were recruiting this way with a first year coach you'd be all over them.
-
If Nu, or ku, or any other Big 12 team were recruiting this way with a first year coach you'd be all over them.
Dax was absolutely wailing on ku last year, when your 1st 10 recruits had no offers.
-
Yea, a team that goes to a BCS bowl usually has more success than a team that doesn't.
Your correlation discounts coaching of teams. Penn State JUST got into a BCS bowl, and they haven't had bad recruiting classes.
Auburn almost fired their coach and they've been to one BCS bowl game.
Notre Dame JUST GOT to a BCS bowl because of the BCS rules.
Florida State barely wins their conference and has a worse record (see KSU over OU)
The correlation between recruiting and BCS appearances, or teams that do well doesn't hold up because you keep changing the parameters. A team that does relatively well can do so for many factors, and recruiting is one of them, NOT THE primary or the MAJORITY reason.
This is what you do not get. You cannot at all say that great recruiting classes = success because there are just as many examples of it going the other way than just one recruiting class.
-
You can't spin 9 bids vs 1 bid.
-
You can't spin 9 bids vs 1 bid.
You can't make unequivocally, and without defense, the correlation you are on one recruiting class.
-
I just did.
9 bids vs 1.
Statisitcally impossible for that to be a "fluke"
-
I just did.
9 bids vs 1.
Statisitcally impossible for that to be a "fluke"
if it was just one season of recruits.. yes. Over the course of say... the last 10 years.. keep at it junior.
-
So you're saying I just got lucky? That in any other year the teams ranked 40-50 have more BCS bids than those in the top ten?
LOL.
-
So you're saying I just got lucky? That in any other year the teams ranked 40-50 have more BCS bids than those in the top ten?
LOL.
No, I'm not saying that all.
What I'm saying is that you narrowed your year to fit your argument, not going back enough years to establish a trend that supports your theory. You just happened to use on that supported it.
So get back to work junior.
-
(http://img275.imageshack.us/img275/1695/recruit6sk.jpg)
EDIT..FLordia doesn't have one.
9-1.
TTT
-
That was extremely weak fatty. Your math professors are shaking their heads right now.
-
You so want to become friends with me.
LOL
-
You so want to become friends with me.
LOL
Nice deflection and tapout.
No way. I don't become friends with high school tennis players who aren't first string.
:D
-
mj is stange
-
If Nu, or ku, or any other Big 12 team were recruiting this way with a first year coach you'd be all over them.
Dax was absolutely wailing on ku last year, when your 1st 10 recruits had no offers.
Bullcrap.
-
So now if KSU doesn't have a Top 10 recruiting class, then it sucks??
Well, good luck in NEVER being happy.
-
If Nu, or ku, or any other Big 12 team were recruiting this way with a first year coach you'd be all over them.
Dax was absolutely wailing on ku last year, when your 1st 10 recruits had no offers.
BullS**T.
LOL. You were giving them crap.
now you look dumb.
-
So now if KSU doesn't have a Top 10 recruiting class, then it sucks??
Well, good luck in NEVER being happy.
Bob f-ing Huggins
-
So now if KSU doesn't have a Top 10 recruiting class, then it sucks??
Well, good luck in NEVER being happy.
Bob f-ing Huggins
Oh, so now football recruiting is like basketball recruiting??
-
Yes, we are kstate. we'll never recruit well.
-
Yes, we are kstate. we'll never recruit well.
I never, never said that.
But I am also not going to start freaking out like a little girl in F-ing May, like somebody else I know.
Fatty ='s Drama Queen.
-
dax,
it's a straw man argument. fatty has been reduced to desperate tactics to defend his obliterated position.
Fact is, stars only matter to those who care. So now, he's just going to grasp at anything.
Yep, it's a lost cause.
fatty has been schooled, badly.
-
Yes, we are kstate. we'll never recruit well.
I never, never said that.
But I am also not going to start freaking out like a little girl in F-ing May, like somebody else I know.
Fatty ='s Drama Queen.
It's obvious you have concerns. You wouldn't have posted that at wabash had you not.
MJ, you = jeffy. That is not good. Change that.
-
Yeah ... and then I did some more research.
Then there's Fatty the School Girl.
-
fats,
Your obsession with jeffy is disturbing. Get some help. Seriously.
-
I just did.
9 bids vs 1.
Statisitcally impossible for that to be a "fluke"
God I hate it when you undergrad twerps take a stats course and suddenly believe that you now understand how everything works. Rodent hammered you on the obvious point that your position ignores the quality of coaching on the teams that are part of your sample groups. However he missed the most obvious point: your methodology also completely fails to account for the quality of player evaluation and development. Prince may or may not be a complete disaster but to panic based on what we've seen to date is just dumb. :blank: :jerkoff:
-
Yes, we are kstate. we'll never recruit well.
I never, never said that.
But I am also not going to start freaking out like a little girl in F-ing May, like somebody else I know.
Fatty ='s Drama Queen.
It's obvious you have concerns. You wouldn't have posted that at wabash had you not.
Where else to get better backup for your opinion than from the kool-aid factory?
-
Yes, we are kstate. we'll never recruit well.
I never, never said that.
But I am also not going to start freaking out like a little girl in F-ing May, like somebody else I know.
Fatty ='s Drama Queen.
It's obvious you have concerns. You wouldn't have posted that at wabash had you not.
Where else to get better backup for your opinion than from the kool-aid factory?
In the real world, if you actually EVER make it there, you'll find that you'll bounce things off of a number of people from time to time.
-
Yes, we are kstate. we'll never recruit well.
I never, never said that.
But I am also not going to start freaking out like a little girl in F-ing May, like somebody else I know.
Fatty ='s Drama Queen.
It's obvious you have concerns. You wouldn't have posted that at wabash had you not.
Where else to get better backup for your opinion than from the kool-aid factory?
In the real world, if you actually EVER make it there, you'll find that you'll bounce things off of a number of people from time to time.
Asking GPC for their view on Princes recruiting is like asking Democrats for an unbiased view on Clintons presidency.
-
Nobody would dare ask a squawk about anything football related.
It would be like asking the pope for directions to a disco.
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
-
not to give fatty any more ammo or to necessarily agree with him but i didnt really like reading this quote from demetrius bell
"Kansas is one of the programs who told my coach they were looking for bigger backs, which was just sugar-coating the fact they didn't think I was big enough to play," said Bell, who also attended the Nebraska spring game, and received recruiting letters from Vanderbilt and Colorado State.
http://www.wildcatdaily.com/view/article.asp?sectionid=Home/News&id=357-2006-04-28-45079-2
ku didnt even want him? thats not a good sign.
-
Prince is putting together a track team.
-
It's hilarious. Dax ran to gpc.com basically raising the same concerns I am.
-
I just did.
9 bids vs 1.
Statisitcally impossible for that to be a "fluke"
God I hate it when you undergrad twerps take a stats course and suddenly believe that you now understand how everything works. Rodent hammered you on the obvious point that your position ignores the quality of coaching on the teams that are part of your sample groups. However he missed the most obvious point: your methodology also completely fails to account for the quality of player evaluation and development. Prince may or may not be a complete disaster but to panic based on what we've seen to date is just dumb. :blank: :jerkoff:
Statistics class? Hey, just using common sense here.
-
1 Texas (2005 NC, 2 BCS bowls)
2 Tennessee (Phil Fulmer)
3 Georgia (1 BCS)
4 Florida State (2 BCS)
5 Ohio State (2 BCS)
6 Auburn (1 BCS, deserved 1 MNC)
7 Oklahoma (2 BCS title games)
8 Miami-FL (1 BCS)
9 UCLA (coach fired)
10 Colorado (coach fired)
11 South Carolina (coach resigned)
12 Virginia (Makes me hope our new coach is really good at developing lower ranked players, because UVA is very mediocre)
13 Southern Cal (3 BCS, 3 title games, 1 NC)
14 Kansas State (1 BCS)
15 LSU (1 BCS, 1 NC)
Summary: Out of 24 possible BCS spots from 2003-2005, 11 came from the 2002 top 10 recruiters. 16(!) came from the top 15. All MNC's came from the top 15, and all BCS title game participants came from the top 15.
-
1 Texas (2005 NC, 2 BCS bowls)
2 Tennessee (Phil Fulmer)
3 Georgia (1 BCS)
4 Florida State (2 BCS)
5 Ohio State (2 BCS)
6 Auburn (1 BCS, deserved 1 MNC)
7 Oklahoma (2 BCS title games)
8 Miami-FL (1 BCS)
9 UCLA (coach fired)
10 Colorado (coach fired)
11 South Carolina (coach resigned)
12 Virginia (Makes me hope our new coach is really good at developing lower ranked players, because UVA is very mediocre)
13 Southern Cal (3 BCS, 3 title games, 1 NC)
14 Kansas State (1 BCS)
15 LSU (1 BCS, 1 NC)
Summary: Out of 24 possible BCS spots from 2003-2005, 11 came from the 2002 top 10 recruiters. 16(!) came from the top 15. All MNC's came from the top 15, and all BCS title game participants came from the top 15.
Incredible. 67% of BCS bids came from the top 15 recuiting classes. If rankings "didn't matter" then technically only 12% of the top 15 would play in BCS games.
Yup...67% vs 12%.....just a damned coincidence.
Great posts rusts. Some people just don't have the mental capability to see past outliers and exceptions and look for a general trend.
-
1 Texas (2005 NC, 2 BCS bowls)
2 Tennessee (Phil Fulmer)
3 Georgia (1 BCS)
4 Florida State (2 BCS)
5 Ohio State (2 BCS)
6 Auburn (1 BCS, deserved 1 MNC)
7 Oklahoma (2 BCS title games)
8 Miami-FL (1 BCS)
9 UCLA (coach fired)
10 Colorado (coach fired)
11 South Carolina (coach resigned)
12 Virginia (Makes me hope our new coach is really good at developing lower ranked players, because UVA is very mediocre)
13 Southern Cal (3 BCS, 3 title games, 1 NC)
14 Kansas State (1 BCS)
15 LSU (1 BCS, 1 NC)
Summary: Out of 24 possible BCS spots from 2003-2005, 11 came from the 2002 top 10 recruiters. 16(!) came from the top 15. All MNC's came from the top 15, and all BCS title game participants came from the top 15.
Incredible. 67% of BCS bids came from the top 15 recuiting classes. If rankings "didn't matter" then technically only 12% of the top 15 would play in BCS games.
Yup...67% vs 12%.....just a damned coincidence.
Great posts rusts. Some people just don't have the mental capability to see past outliers and exceptions and look for a general trend.
Engineers > All
-
You can't blame them really.
Mjrod is a sunshine pumper and never uses any logic at all. He argues like a 4-year-old as KK pointed out earlier. Jeffy jr.
sonofdaxjones shares our concerns, hell...he posted it at wabash...yet he wants stay postive though there is little to grab at. I'm really in this same boat. Can't blame him at all.
Fausto is trying to argue that "maybe crabtree" should be our coach. We'll...the whole point of recruiting is getting guys to commit. Prince knows who the top players are...he just can't land them. Don't think many players would want to play for Crabby. Besides, Fausto still defends Asbury...God help him.
The only argument I buy is that it's early. I agree. Maybe these guys will be highly rated when January rolls. It sure doesn't look like it now.
-
I would love to be positive about Prince, but he just isn't giving me much, other than the fact that he's faster/better at evaluating players than the rest of the Big XII.
-
KSU had a Top 15 class in '02, most didn't play in '03 and in '04 and '05 ... last place in the Big 12 North.
KSU won the Big 12 being led by a 3 star QB and a 3 Star RB.
The other schools you mention are traditional football powers with tons more tradition then KSU. How many #1 recruiting classes has Mack Brown had?? That's translated into 1 conference title and one BCS at large bid because they whined, and whined and whined about it.
Sure Georgia made it to a BCS bowl, and they got worked by West Virginia .... West Virginia's recruiting class rank in 2002 ... 37th.
Virigina Tech 2002 recruiting ranking ... 45th, played in the 2005 Sugar Bowl.
-
I think it is far too early to judge on this years recruiting class. That is all.
-
KSU had a Top 15 class in '02, most didn't play in '03 and in '04 and '05 ... last place in the Big 12 North.
KSU won the Big 12 being led by a 3 star QB and a 3 Star RB.
The other schools you mention are traditional football powers with tons more tradition then KSU. How many #1 recruiting classes has Mack Brown had?? That's translated into 1 conference title and one BCS at large bid because they whined, and whined and whined about it.
Sure Georgia made it to a BCS bowl, and they got worked by West Virginia .... West Virginia's recruiting class rank in 2002 ... 37th.
Virigina Tech 2002 recruiting ranking ... 45th, played in the 2005 Sugar Bowl.
Well, hopefully we'll end up with a top 50 recruiting class. That doesn't exactly look too promising.
I don't see how the recruiting rankings translating into success don't apply to schools with "more tradition". And yeah, what a failure Mack Brown is. :jerkoff:
-
KSU had a Top 15 class in '02, most didn't play in '03 and in '04 and '05 ... last place in the Big 12 North.
KSU won the Big 12 being led by a 3 star QB and a 3 Star RB.
The other schools you mention are traditional football powers with tons more tradition then KSU. How many #1 recruiting classes has Mack Brown had?? That's translated into 1 conference title and one BCS at large bid because they whined, and whined and whined about it.
Sure Georgia made it to a BCS bowl, and they got worked by West Virginia .... West Virginia's recruiting class rank in 2002 ... 37th.
Virigina Tech 2002 recruiting ranking ... 45th, played in the 2005 Sugar Bowl.
Well, hopefully we'll end up with a top 50 recruiting class. That doesn't exactly look too promising.
I don't see how the recruiting rankings translating into success don't apply to schools with "more tradition". And yeah, what a failure Mack Brown is. :jerkoff:
I never said Mack Brown was a failure.
-
Sean Cattouse has offers from Kansas State, Purdue, Minnesota and Northern Illinois so far this spring.
-
KSU had a Top 15 class in '02, most didn't play in '03 and in '04 and '05 ... last place in the Big 12 North.
KSU won the Big 12 being led by a 3 star QB and a 3 Star RB.
The other schools you mention are traditional football powers with tons more tradition then KSU. How many #1 recruiting classes has Mack Brown had?? That's translated into 1 conference title and one BCS at large bid because they whined, and whined and whined about it.
Sure Georgia made it to a BCS bowl, and they got worked by West Virginia .... West Virginia's recruiting class rank in 2002 ... 37th.
Virigina Tech 2002 recruiting ranking ... 45th, played in the 2005 Sugar Bowl.
Well, hopefully we'll end up with a top 50 recruiting class. That doesn't exactly look too promising.
I don't see how the recruiting rankings translating into success don't apply to schools with "more tradition". And yeah, what a failure Mack Brown is. :jerkoff:
I never said Mack Brown was a failure.
You're using him as an example that "recruiting rankings don't mean anything", when he is in fact the perfect example of how superior talent can overcome average coaching to win 10 games a year.
-
KSU had a Top 15 class in '02, most didn't play in '03 and in '04 and '05 ... last place in the Big 12 North.
KSU won the Big 12 being led by a 3 star QB and a 3 Star RB.
The other schools you mention are traditional football powers with tons more tradition then KSU. How many #1 recruiting classes has Mack Brown had?? That's translated into 1 conference title and one BCS at large bid because they whined, and whined and whined about it.
Sure Georgia made it to a BCS bowl, and they got worked by West Virginia .... West Virginia's recruiting class rank in 2002 ... 37th.
Virigina Tech 2002 recruiting ranking ... 45th, played in the 2005 Sugar Bowl.
Well, hopefully we'll end up with a top 50 recruiting class. That doesn't exactly look too promising.
I don't see how the recruiting rankings translating into success don't apply to schools with "more tradition". And yeah, what a failure Mack Brown is. :jerkoff:
I never said Mack Brown was a failure.
You're using him as an example that "recruiting rankings don't mean anything", when he is in fact the perfect example of how superior talent can overcome average coaching to win 10 games a year.
So, you would rather put your eggs into the hopes that the talent works out (when it has been shown that 50% plus of the Rivals Top 100 are basically busts) rather then having superior coaching??
Interesting.
Again, since not one kid has been ranked to date, I still can't understand why we're having this debate.
You and Fatty ='s Owned by ku fans.
-
The argumentative logic here is staggering.
Dax/MJ: Your sample size is insufficient! You aren't factoring in coaching ability! What about upsets in bowl games??! Mack Brown whined to get into a BCS bowl!
Fatty/Rusty: Present a better model. Why should we believe this recruiting class is worth a crap?
Dax/MJ: I have many statistically insignificant outliers I can present with no statistical model at all! Ell Roberson was only three stars!!! Newman! Sproles!!!!
Fatty/Rusty: WTF? Don't you realize the population of 3*>>5*??
-
KSU had a Top 15 class in '02, most didn't play in '03 and in '04 and '05 ... last place in the Big 12 North.
KSU won the Big 12 being led by a 3 star QB and a 3 Star RB.
The other schools you mention are traditional football powers with tons more tradition then KSU. How many #1 recruiting classes has Mack Brown had?? That's translated into 1 conference title and one BCS at large bid because they whined, and whined and whined about it.
Sure Georgia made it to a BCS bowl, and they got worked by West Virginia .... West Virginia's recruiting class rank in 2002 ... 37th.
Virigina Tech 2002 recruiting ranking ... 45th, played in the 2005 Sugar Bowl.
Well, hopefully we'll end up with a top 50 recruiting class. That doesn't exactly look too promising.
I don't see how the recruiting rankings translating into success don't apply to schools with "more tradition". And yeah, what a failure Mack Brown is. :jerkoff:
I never said Mack Brown was a failure.
You're using him as an example that "recruiting rankings don't mean anything", when he is in fact the perfect example of how superior talent can overcome average coaching to win 10 games a year.
So, you would rather put your eggs into the hopes that the talent works out (when it has been shown that 50% plus of the Rivals Top 100 are basically busts) rather then having superior coaching??
We don't have superior coaching or good recruiting. I don't see how that applies. However, I would rather have a coach with superior recruiting and unknown coaching ability than a subpar recruiter with unknown coaching ability, kind of like we have now.
We're having this debate because many of these early commits appear questionable, at least questionable enough that no one else is offering them scholarships, and we're hearing quotes like "K-State is probably the best offer I can hope for", etc. I hope I'm suprised by February.
-
KSU had a Top 15 class in '02, most didn't play in '03 and in '04 and '05 ... last place in the Big 12 North.
KSU won the Big 12 being led by a 3 star QB and a 3 Star RB.
The other schools you mention are traditional football powers with tons more tradition then KSU. How many #1 recruiting classes has Mack Brown had?? That's translated into 1 conference title and one BCS at large bid because they whined, and whined and whined about it.
Sure Georgia made it to a BCS bowl, and they got worked by West Virginia .... West Virginia's recruiting class rank in 2002 ... 37th.
Virigina Tech 2002 recruiting ranking ... 45th, played in the 2005 Sugar Bowl.
Well, hopefully we'll end up with a top 50 recruiting class. That doesn't exactly look too promising.
I don't see how the recruiting rankings translating into success don't apply to schools with "more tradition". And yeah, what a failure Mack Brown is. :jerkoff:
I never said Mack Brown was a failure.
You're using him as an example that "recruiting rankings don't mean anything", when he is in fact the perfect example of how superior talent can overcome average coaching to win 10 games a year.
So, you would rather put your eggs into the hopes that the talent works out (when it has been shown that 50% plus of the Rivals Top 100 are basically busts) rather then having superior coaching??
We don't have superior coaching or good recruiting. I don't see how that applies. However, I would rather have a coach with superior recruiting and unknown coaching ability than a subpar recruiter with unknown coaching ability, kind of like we have now.
We're having this debate because many of these early commits appear questionable, at least questionable enough that no one else is offering them scholarships, and we're hearing quotes like "K-State is probably the best offer I can hope for", etc. I hope I'm suprised by February.
I haven't seen one kid say that KSU is the "best offer I can hope for". Aufner said he was surprised by the early offer. But watching his film its quite clear to me why KSU offered him early.
-
Dee Bell in the cap journal.
-
Ah, maybe he thinks highly of KSU.
I know it'll come as a shock to you, but some kids have actually gotten to know KSU football pretty well, and actually aspire and want to play for KSU.
I've watched all of his film, and to me he looks like Darren Sproles out there. You I suspect are listening to the squawks talk about his build. What do they know ... here's a hint .. NOTHING.
-
Dee Bell in the cap journal.
I think I'll fit pretty well into that system," Bell said, noting that he also received interest from Arizona State, Vanderbilt and Colorado State, among others. "I really don't think I can beat K-State."
-
Ah, maybe he thinks highly of KSU.
I know it'll come as a shock to you, but some kids have actually gotten to know KSU football pretty well, and actually aspire and want to play for KSU.
Apparently, not many good 2007 recruits do. What are ku fans saying about Bell? All I know is Vanderbilt "showed interest" and he grew up an OU fan.
-
http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=539556
Dax, RMCat has taken your stance. :shy:
-
I just wonder how many of the 4 and 5 star recruits commit this early? I also wonder how many scholarships we will have available after we sign all these 2 star guys.
And, who knows, maybe these guys stock will rise after their senior season.
I'm not putting a whole lot of stock in to this right now, but i'll be surprised/upset if we don't bring in a top 30 class in Feb.
-
http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=539556
Dax, RMCat has taken your stance. :shy:
Daniel Davis and Terrance Newman disprove everything in that article.
-
http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=539556
Dax, RMCat has taken your stance. :shy:
Here's the deal, I am pretty much hated by the sunshinie pumpers on PI because I actually question things. However, having now been a college football fan and a K-State fan for about 35 years, I am not going to start bitching about a recruiting class in May. I am also not going to start taking the so called "experts" word for everything when I know ... historically the best football players KSU has had in the last 10-12 years have been the 2-3 star guys.
Every so called "blue chip" can't miss kid KSU has recruited has been a complete bust. The only "can't miss" kids that have worked out have all been Juco's.
-
I'm with Saul on this one. I think it's just too early to make a call on what's going on. Obviously, we're recruiting differently than Snyder did. We're offering a lot of local kids, many of whom don't seem to have gotten much attention yet. Although there are warning signs, it's just too early to tell. We need to wait and see how the rankings are updated, and then how this class pans out. If it's ranked pretty low by next spring, then I think we get really worried. But we haven't even seen how Prince coaches yet and if his staff is gonna coach people up.
Sure, there are possible warning signs. But I'm not ready to conclude that recruiting under Prince is a disaster, just yet.
(Why does this feel like Wooly all over again? :P )
-
Basketball is a lot different then football ... you can tell pretty quickly if a kid has got in hoops.
Lets look at the Ochs brothers ... both pretty much unheralded recruits out of Shawnee Mission South ... how did that turn out??
They worked out, got bigger and stronger, and were coached well. Given our DE situation, who here wouldn't kill to have Dirk Ochs back??
-
1 Texas (2005 NC, 2 BCS bowls)
2 Tennessee (Phil Fulmer)
3 Georgia (1 BCS)
4 Florida State (2 BCS)
5 Ohio State (2 BCS)
6 Auburn (1 BCS, deserved 1 MNC)
7 Oklahoma (2 BCS title games)
8 Miami-FL (1 BCS)
9 UCLA (coach fired)
10 Colorado (coach fired)
11 South Carolina (coach resigned)
12 Virginia (Makes me hope our new coach is really good at developing lower ranked players, because UVA is very mediocre)
13 Southern Cal (3 BCS, 3 title games, 1 NC)
14 Kansas State (1 BCS)
15 LSU (1 BCS, 1 NC)
Summary: Out of 24 possible BCS spots from 2003-2005, 11 came from the 2002 top 10 recruiters. 16(!) came from the top 15. All MNC's came from the top 15, and all BCS title game participants came from the top 15.
Interesting. Here's where your logic fails.
A class will not have an impact on a team immediately, but rather in about three years, generally when most players are either true juniors or redshirt sophomores AND assuming those teams do not have impact players from the previous class. To use the argument that a recruiting class will have an immediate impact, and to use the success of the previous years is the fallacy in your argument and goes against the conventional thinking of the process. You cannot give a recruiting class for BCS bowl games where they would not have any impact.
Therefore, I will correct your recruiting to establish the true picture. We can safely assume that the 2002 class will have some bearing on the 2005. Keep in mind that players from 2001 will still have an impact:
1 Texas - BCS NC game (12-0)
2 Tennessee - 5-6 season
3 Georgia - 10-2 (BCS Bowl - lost to West Virginia)
4 Florida State 8-5 (BCS Bowl - but not best record in conference - Miami, VaTech better, Loses to Big 10 Champ Penn State)
5 Ohio State - 10-2 (BCS at large bid - beat a overachieving Notre Dame team)
6 Auburn - 9-3 (Bowl Game Lost to "Wisconsin.")
7 Oklahoma - 8-4 (Holiday Bowl - Lost to tcu??)
8 Miami-FL - 9-3 (Blown out by LSU)
9 UCLA - 10-2 (Blows out hapless Northwestern team)
10 Colorado - 7-6 (Loses to Clemson in bowl game)
11 South Carolina - 7-5 (Loses Bowl game to Missouri..)
12 Virginia - 7-5 (Bowl game win against Minnesota)
13 Southern Cal - BCS Title Game (Loses to Texas)
14 Kansas State 5-6
15 LSU - 11-2 (Destroys higher ranked recruiting class Miami Team)
Of the Top 5 teams, four go to BCS bowls. Of the four, go, and two of the four lose to teams who are lower ranked in recruiting. Two get there by winning their championships, not a true measure of whether the team deserves, but they still end up losing to inferior recruiting RANKED teams. Notice Penn State won, and were higher RANKED in the polls at the time.
Last half of the Top 5 go to bowl games (no BCS Bowls) BUT 2 of the remaining 5 win their bowl games, where OU beat Oregon (a higher RANKED team poll wise, not recruiting wise) the losers again, losing to lower recruiting ranked teams.
From 11-15, the 4 go to bowl games, Virginia beats a lower recruiting ranked team, LSU beats a HIGHER recruiting ranked team and SOCAL is the #1 team all season and plays the game of the 21st centuryaand barely loses. Steve Spurier gets smoked by Gary Pinkel.
The only thing you can say with any realism is that fatty's comment about "generally" is as close as it gets but even then you must put an asterisk beside it. What I have contended is actually more true. If recruiting means BCS bowl games, the only way to accurately sample that is to measure the teams rankings and see where they end up down the line, not one year then measure the next four years because recruits do not make immediate impacts on teams. Coaching plays a big deal in it because out of the Top 10 teams that played their bowl games, only 3 beat a team ranked recruiting wise LOWER than it. The remaining 6 lost. 33%. Success is measured in the wins folks, and that includes the bowl games.
But, since I know you'll take this argument and state, unequivocally, that the success is measured in reaching the post season, then you'll need to study more than just a year to get that answer. In this case, 13 of the 15 teams reached bowl games. All of the teams that reached bowl games were ranked during the season. And again, the teams that won comprised of more than just the recruits for that class, so you must consider that in your analysis.
Bottom line, recruit in the Top 15, you have a better chance of going to a bowl game. That's the only thing that can be shown correctly, with the data.
-
Hey Jeffy Jr, compare that with the recruiting classes from 40-50.
Thx.
-
Hey Jeffy Jr, compare that with the recruiting classes from 40-50.
Thx.
Irrelevant. This is what you asked for and got.
Go back to learning how to play tennis, third stringer.
-
No, I compared team rankings 1-10 vs team ranking 40-50.
-
No, I compared team rankings 1-10 vs team ranking 40-50.
Doesn't matter. The success you're trying to make with teams in the top 10 do not pan out like you want. It's that simple. Can you not see that?
-
Please compare the better recruiting classes (1-10) vs the not as good classes (40-50) and tell me what you get.
THX!
-
No, I compared team rankings 1-10 vs team ranking 40-50.
Doesn't matter. The success you're trying to make with teams in the top 10 do not pan out like you want. It's that simple. Can you not see that?
The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.
Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.
I'd say the top 10 is very successful.
-
I'll even do you better. Let's consider the Top 25 final Rankings, and then the 2002 recruiting classes for these teams..
AP rank, Recruiting Rank, Team
1,1 Texas
2,13 USC
3,21 Penn State
4,5 Ohio State
5,37 West Virginia
6,15 LSU
7,45 Virginia Tech
8,30 Alabama
9,24 Notre Dame
10,3 Georgia
11,79 tcu
12,20 Florida
12,49 Oregon
14,6 Auburn
15,50 Wisconsin
16,9 UCLA
17,8 Miami (FL)
18,43 Boston College
19,59 Louisville
20,48 Texas Tech
21,22 Clemson
22,7 Oklahoma
23,4 Florida State
24,40 Nebraska
25,64 California
Final Rankings from the 2005 season with the 2002 class rankings for recruiting.
In the top 10, only three teams had a ranking that was in the Top 10 recruiting.
In the top 10, five teams had ranking that was in the Top 15 recruiting.
In the Top 15, only FOUR teams had a ranking was in the Top 10 recruiting,
In the Top 15, only FIVE TEAMS had a ranking that was in the Top 15 recruiting.
In the Top 20, only Six teams had a ranking that was in the Top 10 recruiting,
In the Top 20 only 8 Teams had a Top 20 Recruiting class.
11 Teams total in the Top 25 had a recruiting rank that was NOT in the Top 25 recruiting rank.
14 teams out of the Top 25 had a recruiting rank that NOT in the Top 20 recruiting rank.
-
Please compare the better recruiting classes (1-10) vs the not as good classes (40-50) and tell me what you get.
THX!
That is still irrelevant.
-
No, I compared team rankings 1-10 vs team ranking 40-50.
Doesn't matter. The success you're trying to make with teams in the top 10 do not pan out like you want. It's that simple. Can you not see that?
The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.
Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.
I'd say the top 10 is very successful.
That's nice you went to all that trouble on two statistics not related to each other.
-
I'll even do you better. Let's consider the Top 25 final Rankings, and then the 2002 recruiting classes for these teams..
AP rank, Recruiting Rank, Team
1,1 Texas
2,13 USC
3,21 Penn State
4,5 Ohio State
5,37 West Virginia
6,15 LSU
7,45 Virginia Tech
8,30 Alabama
9,24 Notre Dame
10,3 Georgia
11,79 tcu
12,20 Florida
12,49 Oregon
14,6 Auburn
15,50 Wisconsin
16,9 UCLA
17,8 Miami (FL)
18,43 Boston College
19,59 Louisville
20,48 Texas Tech
21,22 Clemson
22,7 Oklahoma
23,4 Florida State
24,40 Nebraska
25,64 California
Final Rankings from the 2005 season with the 2002 class rankings for recruiting.
In the top 10, only three teams had a ranking that was in the Top 10 recruiting.
In the top 10, five teams had ranking that was in the Top 15 recruiting.
In the Top 15, only FOUR teams had a ranking was in the Top 10 recruiting,
In the Top 15, only FIVE TEAMS had a ranking that was in the Top 15 recruiting.
In the Top 20, only Six teams had a ranking that was in the Top 10 recruiting,
In the Top 20 only 8 Teams had a Top 20 Recruiting class.
11 Teams total in the Top 25 had a recruiting rank that was NOT in the Top 25 recruiting rank.
14 teams out of the Top 25 had a recruiting rank that NOT in the Top 20 recruiting rank.
That's cute! 8 of the top 10 in recruiting still finished in the top 25. No matter how you spin it, a top 25 season is a success.
-
No, I compared team rankings 1-10 vs team ranking 40-50.
Doesn't matter. The success you're trying to make with teams in the top 10 do not pan out like you want. It's that simple. Can you not see that?
The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.
Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.
I'd say the top 10 is very successful.
That's nice you went to all that trouble on two statistics not related to each other.
You can leave out Bill Snyder's record and the point stays the same. The top 10 in recruiting won over 70% of their games in 2005.
That = success
If you could find a range of teams that did better, that'd be pretty cool.
-
Rusty, TB! :mad:
-
I'll even do you better. Let's consider the Top 25 final Rankings, and then the 2002 recruiting classes for these teams..
AP rank, Recruiting Rank, Team
1,1 Texas
2,13 USC
3,21 Penn State
4,5 Ohio State
5,37 West Virginia
6,15 LSU
7,45 Virginia Tech
8,30 Alabama
9,24 Notre Dame
10,3 Georgia
11,79 tcu
12,20 Florida
12,49 Oregon
14,6 Auburn
15,50 Wisconsin
16,9 UCLA
17,8 Miami (FL)
18,43 Boston College
19,59 Louisville
20,48 Texas Tech
21,22 Clemson
22,7 Oklahoma
23,4 Florida State
24,40 Nebraska
25,64 California
Final Rankings from the 2005 season with the 2002 class rankings for recruiting.
In the top 10, only three teams had a ranking that was in the Top 10 recruiting.
In the top 10, five teams had ranking that was in the Top 15 recruiting.
In the Top 15, only FOUR teams had a ranking was in the Top 10 recruiting,
In the Top 15, only FIVE TEAMS had a ranking that was in the Top 15 recruiting.
In the Top 20, only Six teams had a ranking that was in the Top 10 recruiting,
In the Top 20 only 8 Teams had a Top 20 Recruiting class.
11 Teams total in the Top 25 had a recruiting rank that was NOT in the Top 25 recruiting rank.
14 teams out of the Top 25 had a recruiting rank that NOT in the Top 20 recruiting rank.
That's cute! 8 of the top 10 in recruiting still finished in the top 25. No matter how you spin it, a top 25 season is a success.
No, not according to you guys. You were pushing BCS, and fatty's argument was the same, BCS or bust. Now you're dropping down to where it counts, that recruiting rankings don't equal the success you were pushing earlier.
It's easy to see why you and fatty argue the way you do. None of you can make your argument stick to the point, and you have to keep changing directions. I made it relevant for you and you quickly adjust to discount the obviousness that of the Top 25 teams in the country, almost half are from teams that didn't EVEN break the Top 25 in recruiting. A sure sign that makes the rankings and stars arguments completely questionable.
-
No, I compared team rankings 1-10 vs team ranking 40-50.
Doesn't matter. The success you're trying to make with teams in the top 10 do not pan out like you want. It's that simple. Can you not see that?
The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.
Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.
I'd say the top 10 is very successful.
That's nice you went to all that trouble on two statistics not related to each other.
You can leave out Bill Snyder's record and the point stays the same. The top 10 in recruiting won over 70% of their games in 2005.
That = success
If you could find a range of teams that did better, that'd be pretty cool.
Now it's winning %????
Funny stuff. First is you go to BCS bowls more, now it's just you win more games.. how many more times are you going to change the issue?
Original contention.. stars, or rather rankings do not matter. Still shows to be true. Success is measured in whatever terms will fit your argument. Keep spinning away.
I'm still waiting on your proof that Prince is not as at least capable of evaluating recruits as any other Big 12 coach.
-
No, not according to you guys. You were pushing BCS, and fatty's argument was the same, BCS or bust. Now you're dropping down to where it counts, that recruiting rankings don't equal the success you were pushing earlier.
Link to where I defined success.
-
No, not according to you guys. You were pushing BCS, and fatty's argument was the same, BCS or bust. Now you're dropping down to where it counts, that recruiting rankings don't equal the success you were pushing earlier.
Link to where I defined success.
Your definition of success was 77% of games won.
See about five posts above.
-
No, not according to you guys. You were pushing BCS, and fatty's argument was the same, BCS or bust. Now you're dropping down to where it counts, that recruiting rankings don't equal the success you were pushing earlier.
Link to where I defined success.
Your definition of success was 77% of games won.
See about five posts above.
I consider Bill Snyder very successful, too. Bill won 66% of his games. Also, learn to read.
-
No, not according to you guys. You were pushing BCS, and fatty's argument was the same, BCS or bust. Now you're dropping down to where it counts, that recruiting rankings don't equal the success you were pushing earlier.
Link to where I defined success.
Your definition of success was 77% of games won.
See about five posts above.
I consider Bill Snyder very successful, too. Bill won 66% of his games. Also, learn to read.
:jerkoff:
-
The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.
Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.
I'd say the top 10 is very successful.
:confused:
-
The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.
Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.
I'd say the top 10 is very successful.
:confused:
So is a lot of other teams not in the Top 10. The argument is more teams NOT in the Top 10 are just as successful.
Continue with your spin below.
:jerkoff:
-
The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.
Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.
I'd say the top 10 is very successful.
:confused:
So is a lot of other teams not in the Top 10. The argument is more teams NOT in the Top 10 are just as successful.
Continue with your spin below.
:jerkoff:
"Wow, the bottom 91.6%(!) in recruiting rankings get half as many schools into BCS games as the top 8.4%! The bottom 110 in recruiting rankings are just as successful as the top 10!!! :dancin:"
-
The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.
Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.
I'd say the top 10 is very successful.
:confused:
So is a lot of other teams not in the Top 10. The argument is more teams NOT in the Top 10 are just as successful.
Continue with your spin below.
:jerkoff:
"Wow, the bottom 91.6%(!) in recruiting rankings get half as many schools into BCS games as the top 8.4%! The bottom 110 in recruiting rankings are just as successful as the top 10!!! :dancin:"
Now we're back to BCS games.. incredible.
-
:popcorn: this thread is great...time to chime in
i think the original arguement is getting lost somewhere. is it that classes as a whole equal success or that individual star ratings mean anything? or that coaching is more important than recruiting classes?
i dont think you can look at one class by itself, but i'd bet consistent top 20 recruiting over 3-5 year periods has a much higher probability for success (however you want to define it) than consistently lower recruiting. otherwise why even bother paying for this info?
individual player ratings are a great measure of physical tool potential. what they dont measure is heart/desire and fit into a system. good coaching staffs balance that out by finding fits for what they do.
to me, coaching and recruiting are equally important; it takes both to win at the highest level. kstate had great success mostly due to coaching. if snyder had the players mack brown has had i would think he would have won more than brown has at this point. i'd bet if recruiting info were available in the mid 90s, i'd guess that kstates 98 team had a lot of what today would have been big time 4&5 star juco studs on it.
either way the ratings aren't out and we dont know how they will use the players they get so i'm not going to throw this staff under the bus just yet.
-
MJ and I are arguing two different things:
I'm arguing that having a top-rated recruiting class will have a better chance of success on the field, no matter what the criteria, when compared to a lower-rated recruiting class. Any attempt to dispute this using any combination of criterion has been disputed.
MJ is just arguing that it is possible for someone with a lower-rated recruiting class to have success. Of course it's possible - recruiting higher-rated players just make it easier.
-
Actually, it's that stars matter is the criteria.
Success of a program is more than just recruiting, and that has been shown to be more of an impact than recruiting alone. Rusty is incorrectly trying to make the correlation that success on the field = recruiting, and manipulates the numbers to his advantage. By spotlighting only what he wants you to see, the numbers give him an edge.
What is important for a team to be successful on the field is not just recruiting, but coaching and player development. By Rusty's standards, Bill Snyder should not be successful, as the same with Rich Rodriguez, or Urban Meyer, or any number of coaches that have built programs from recruiting that has been sub par.
-
What is important for a team to be successful on the field is not just recruiting, but coaching and player development. By Rusty's standards, Bill Snyder should not be successful, as the same with Rich Rodriguez, or Urban Meyer, or any number of coaches that have built programs from recruiting that has been sub par.
Bullcrap. Of course coaching and player development matter.
But:
I'm arguing that having a top-rated recruiting class will have a better chance of success on the field, no matter what the criteria, when compared to a lower-rated recruiting class. Any attempt to dispute this using any combination of criterion has been disputed.
-
What is important for a team to be successful on the field is not just recruiting, but coaching and player development. By Rusty's standards, Bill Snyder should not be successful, as the same with Rich Rodriguez, or Urban Meyer, or any number of coaches that have built programs from recruiting that has been sub par.
BullS**T. Of course coaching and player development matter.
But:
I'm arguing that having a top-rated recruiting class will have a better chance of success on the field, no matter what the criteria, when compared to a lower-rated recruiting class. Any attempt to dispute this using any combination of criterion has been disputed.
That's not what you're implying, and even so, your numbers do no speak of the effect of coaching within the system as being a factor of making those recruits.
The exact opposite of the argument would be..
Take the Texas class, give it to the University of Buffalo. Could they use that same class and get to the NC game? That's really the question and more pertinent to the discussion. Would Kansas State be better with Texas' recruits? We don't know because the variables within the system would dictate how that player is developed. Each kid responds in his own way to the system. The issue is relativity. Would Buffalo produce the same results?
-
The problem Jeffy Jr, is that you actually believe this "If I had a great coach, a team of two stars will beat a team of 5 stars with a mediocre coach."
Honest to God, you have no brain.
Congrats.
-
The problem Jeffy Jr, is that you actually believe this "If I had a great coach, a team of two stars will beat a team of 5 stars with a mediocre coach."
Honest to God, you have no brain.
Congrats.
:rolleyes: :sleep:
Wake me up when you make an argument that hasn't been destroyed yet.
-
i think the problem with both sides of the argument is that absolutely neither side can or ever will be proven right. coaching absolutely matters and it doesnt appear that anyone is disputing that fact. the problem with saying that a team of 2 stars can beat a team of 5 stars as long as the 2 stars team is well coached is that a lot of these teams that are getting the 5 star recruits are well coached. i agree that player development is important and that its very early in the recruiting process. i also realize that most of kstates biggest recruits have been total busts so obviously the type of situation the players come into makes a huge difference. i also think its easier to develop players who are already skilled and athletic which is essentially what 4 and 5 star recruits are. kstate has had plenty of success in the past without 5 star recruits so i dont see why we should all be in panic mode now.
-
The types of commits could merely be signs of a different recruiting strategy. It does seem that we’ve offered a ton of prospects. The ones that have committed are certainly not the ones we have rated the highest. They are just the ones who have accepted an offer at this point. There’s no harm in that. Most of them will probably not sign with KSU. Things change. They always do.
I’m really just guessing here, like everyone else. I do, however, expect to see all kinds of changes to the commit list over time. The number of changes will probably shock many of those who are used to Snyder’s relatively conservative, passive style of recruiting.
-
I would say many of them sign with KSU ... and what's interesting is other schools are following suit.
Sonier ... now has 5 offers according to Rivals, LaMark Brown 4-5 offers according to Rivals, Bell has 3 to 4 offers according to Scout including Arizona State.
I also like the kid we've offered out of St. Joe as well.
-
(http://www.anachrome.com/chiclit.jpg)
-
TTT
Some people saw this coming.
Mj gets humiliated. Everyone can see why we miss Rusty and fatty shows why he is so great (not just funny).
-
now I know where rusty got all his posts.
-
we actually should have seen this coming in 01 with the signing of Marc Dunn and no other viable qb.
-
"So much for recruiting, right?" Prince said.
http://cjonline.com/stories/041908/cat_270067920.shtml
-
I think we're more like Iowa State than Baylor.
-
Some of you are waaayy too down on Prince.
The guy has gotten us wins. It's the recruiting that I hate.
-
we're in better shape than when snyder left, christ that guy ran the program into the ground.
-
I think we are going to have another DoD in a few years. JMO.
-
All the pieces for it seem to be falling into place.
-
Some of you are waaayy too down on Prince.
The guy has gotten us wins. It's the recruiting that I hate.
What about the turnover of assistants?
-
Success of a program is more than just recruiting, and that has been shown to be more of an impact than recruiting alone.
agreed.... and sadly we have to look at ku as an example.
Their recruiting wasn't dramatically that much better in '04 and '05 and alot of players from those classes won them 12 games last year.
-
Thank God for Bob Huggins.
:confused:
-
Thank God for Bob Huggins.
:confused:
look at the dates tard.
-
TTT
Some people saw this coming.
Mj gets humiliated. Everyone can see why we miss Rusty and fatty shows why he is so great (not just funny).
Actually, it proves my point.. coaching matters. Go back and read the thread again.
-
we're in better shape than when snyder left, christ that guy ran the program into the ground.
You won't be saying that at the end of this season...
Just sayin'...
-
Mj, that is a ridiculous interpretation of the argument.
-
we're in better shape than when snyder left, christ that guy ran the program into the ground.
You won't be saying that at the end of this season...
Just sayin'...
I think we could be better as a team than last year and in goog shape heading into 09 but not neccessarily have the wins to show for it. If we win 4 maybe 5 games and are competitive in most of them I'll feel great about next year and might even meltdown a little if we are mediocre again.
-
Mj, that is a ridiculous interpretation of the argument.
Tapout noted.
-
consistant top 25 teams recruit in the top 30 every year, consistant top 10 teams recruit in the top 15-20 nearly every year.
I don't think that you need to recruit top 10-25 every year to be successful, because in the end only 11 guys are on the field at one time but you need to do it every other year to stay close to the top 25.
the last several years the winner of the big 12 North has been in the top 10-20 in the polls. Don't know where their recruiting has been since 02/03 though.
-
Well, I think this is an appropriate time to bump this.
The reason the team sucks is because our recruiting sucks. It really isn't more complicated than that.
-
Well, I think this is an appropriate time to bump this.
The reason the team sucks is because our recruiting sucks. It really isn't more complicated than that.
But Bill Snyder... diamonds in the rough... etc.
-
Recruiting is the source problem, but as far as the defense goes, I still blame the 3-4 for making the recruiting even tougher and the play even worse.
-
Recruiting is the source problem, but as far as the defense goes, I still blame the 3-4 for making the recruiting even tougher and the play even worse.
The 3-4 is probably part of it, but when you are as unsound with assignments, can't tackle, and can't cover it really doesn't matter what scheme we run. I honestly don't think we'd be any better in another scheme.
-
Recruiting is the source problem, but as far as the defense goes, I still blame the 3-4 for making the recruiting even tougher and the play even worse.
The 3-4 is probably part of it, but when you are as unsound with assignments, can't tackle, and can't cover it really doesn't matter what scheme we run. I honestly don't think we'd be any better in another scheme.
Yeah, when we ran that "Tampa 2" there were a lot of games where it seems like teams could run through gigantic holes with no one close by to tackle them and there would be wide open receivers all over the place. That probably worries me more than missed open field tackles. I think we'd see sh*tty defense no matter what the scheme.
-
Recruiting is the source problem, but as far as the defense goes, I still blame the 3-4 for making the recruiting even tougher and the play even worse.
The 3-4 is probably part of it, but when you are as unsound with assignments, can't tackle, and can't cover it really doesn't matter what scheme we run. I honestly don't think we'd be any better in another scheme.
Yeah, when we ran that "Tampa 2" there were a lot of games where it seems like teams could run through gigantic holes with no one close by to tackle them and there would be wide open receivers all over the place. That probably worries me more than missed open field tackles. I think we'd see sh*tty defense no matter what the scheme.
The sad thing is that both schemes had an illusion of being "good" early, but after a few games when opponents figured it out (besides Mack Brown and staff) we got regularly torched. I suppose there was this hope that young coordinators could at least recruit and they'd learn on the job with a few growing pains. But more and more we look like a staff that few HS kids will buy what we sell and then when it comes to gameplans and adjustments we are in over our heads. After a while if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck its got to be a duck.
-
I think there is talent on this defense. And I think it is better suited for a 4-3. Given that, I think it'd perform better. We don't have the LB's for a 3-4, we barely have them for a 4-3. The fact that we are in a 3-4 only makes it worse. And it only makes recruiting players who could make it better more difficult. The 3-4 breeds (more so than the 4-3) a lack of discipline. Or at least how it's being "taught". I think the 4-3 would be better than the 3-4 and when you're a team like KSU, maybe the amount of that "betterness" might make a difference between beating NU/ISU at home or losing to them.
-
Coaching is the issue.
Defensively, if you cannot learn how to get our of your blocks, how to move your man out of the way, TACKLE, then five star kids who can't be coached will not win you games.
I don't think recruiting is going to fix the basic problems of fundamentals coaching. Watch Nebraska teams vs. last year.. Callahan had major talent, but he was and had horrible coaches.
Pelini's teams look better coached.
-
When it was 4th and 2 for them and we lined up in a 3-4, LB's off the line 3 yards, I gave up on this staff just on frackin principle. Rediculous crap right there.
-
TTT
Cannot be resurrected enough.