KSUFans Archives
Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: fatty fat fat on October 20, 2006, 07:56:01 AM
-
http://www.netbuffs.com/message_board/football/2006/October/19/410568.php
More (http://www.stars.ac.uk/images/logoAnim2.gif) plz! now!
-
We should be a lot better right now based on our 2002 and 2003 classes...or we'll be much worse than we are now in a couple years.
:crybaby:
-
stars are nice and all but there are several kids who are current commits that are not highly rated who are definite JC placements and the only reason they are 2 star is because they don't have other offers...why don't they have offers? Academic risk. It's not to say they would be 4 stars if they were likely to make it but even some of those types don't get a lot of bigs to offer...like a Rodney Picou. Why do you think he was a 4 star but only NU and Utah offered?
But, as always, we'll see in a few years how good our talent evaluators are on this staff. Louisville and West Virginia are perfect examples that star counting means nothing.
-
star counting means nothing.
Wow. No response to this. People have really lowered their expectations.
-
People have really lowered their expectations.
Actually no response was probably more appropriate given the comment about expectations.
Perhaps fans of #4 West Virginia and #7 Louisville have "lowered their expectations"?
Louisville classes:
'02: 2.39
'03: 2.39
'04: 2.13
'05: 2.59
West Virginia classes:
'02: 2.30
'03: 2.52
'04: 2.41
'05: 2.48
Nobody here is suggesting whether or not our current staff can evaluate like said programs but nobody can suggest the opposite at this point in time either.
We'll see what happens but suggesting that lowered expecations because Jeremy Crabtree doesn't have some kid rated 4 stars or not...well you can answer that one for yourself I guess.
-
Are there any schools averaging over 3.5 stars the last 4 years that are not in the top 25?
-
hatter. great post.
Here is my point, and my only point.
(http://members.cox.net/fatty4ksu/recruiting.JPG)
-
fatty, you are correct. Both sides are correct but it depends on the program.
I guess some people don't realize we're not FSU, Oklahoma, or LSU...
Yes, those teams that average over 3.5 stars are good for a reason...because everybody knows who their signees are because all of the coaches know who are the most dynamic athletes in the most highly visible recruiting states...duh!! And all of those kids will get the offers.
But then it's the programs like Louisivlle, WVa, KSU, Va Tech that have to search a little harder and spend more time evaluating.
Sure...stars mean something to a FSU, Tennessee, LSU because they can cast a big net over the most obvious of prospects in the most obvious of states....but programs like KSU, Louisville, etc....they don't fit that image and have to work a bit harder and spend more time developing their players.
But, again, the star rankings are applied by some folks who have very little knowledge compared to those who actually do the evaluating, recruiting, and coaching.
-
All true, but our star average is behind such school as Okie State, Texas Tech, Missouri...etc...
KSU has had a crap-ton more success recently than those schools
-
to echo the fat one, i don't mind being behind texas and ou in the star count. if brown/stoops fart in a recruits house the kid gets an extra star.
i don't like consistently getting beaten by missou, cu, tech, osu, etc.
-
but our star average is behind such school as Okie State, Texas Tech, Missouri...etc...
and ahead of such programs like WVa and Louisville.
But, alas, I throw in the white flag of surrender. Stars mean everything and you have made me see the light.
Hey, I'm not the one saying they don't mean anything and they mean everything...I just presented the other side w/ my example. Problem is we won't know w/ this current staff for a few years. I just hope they continue to do this "24 hours and Ihop" or "waffle house" crap that Prince says over and over.
-
People have really lowered their expectations.
Actually no response was probably more appropriate given the comment about expectations.
Many beleive that there is a stong correlation between star rankings and winning. That entails two sorts of expectation: an expectation that we should be landing higher rated players and an expectation that we should win.
-
do exceptions make the rule?
-
Many beleive that there is a stong correlation between star rankings and winning. That entails two sorts of expectation: an expectation that we should be landing higher rated players and an expectation that we should win.
And while I noted your point I also see that you failed to acknowledge my point.
There was an article in the Miami Herald a few years back talking about how the class for Miami that produced the most 1st round draft picks of any Miami recruiting class in history was not even ranked in the top 20 as a recruiting class.
Oklahoma's national title team was comprised of recruiting classes that averaged a ranking of 26.2....the team that many people feel could be the greatest of all time in the '95 Nebraska team averaged a ranking of 17.6. Strong but not what you would expect to be the strongest ever based on this strong correlation.
Like I said...and I guess it was missed...both sides can make cases.
It's also well known by a lot of people that if recruit A commits to Oklahoma they are 3 stars whereas if recruit A committed to Oklahoma State they are probably 2 stars. If you don't think that occurs then you are naive...that is not always the case but it most definitely has influence on the rankings.
Like I said...I doubt the "expectations" of those fans for Louisville and WVa are lowered based on what some joe schmo thinks of a 17 year old kid's ability in a few years.
I will repeat it once again for those hard of hearing. We are not Tennessee. We are not Oklahoma. We are not Miami, LSU, or Ohio State. All of the coaches know who the elite prospects are...only a select few programs will have the opportunity to land the majority of them. The rest have to look longer for the less recognizable talents...less recognizable because they are in states where talent is more scarce, or they are late bloomers(most of these kids are known by their sophomore years), or whatever the reason. That does not mean they won't turn out to be special players and it's not like you need a 4 star prep all-american at every position to have a good team. A few difference makers on either side of the ball and then a number of experienced disciplined players at the other positions and you have yourself a good football team.
There are so many dynamics to building a good football team/program...star rankings are cool for water cooler talk but they are not the end all be all.
And one last comment...I have yet to come across one KState fan on these boards who would not like some 4 star kid so I'm not sure what you mean by the expectations. If a fan doesn't write off a 2 star kid based on what Jeremy Crabtree thinks of him does that mean we have "lowered expecations"?
-
fatty, you are correct. Both sides are correct but it depends on the program.
I guess some people don't realize we're not FSU, Oklahoma, or LSU...
Yes, those teams that average over 3.5 stars are good for a reason...because everybody knows who their signees are because all of the coaches know who are the most dynamic athletes in the most highly visible recruiting states...duh!! And all of those kids will get the offers.
But then it's the programs like Louisivlle, WVa, KSU, Va Tech that have to search a little harder and spend more time evaluating.
Sure...stars mean something to a FSU, Tennessee, LSU because they can cast a big net over the most obvious of prospects in the most obvious of states....but programs like KSU, Louisville, etc....they don't fit that image and have to work a bit harder and spend more time developing their players.
But, again, the star rankings are applied by some folks who have very little knowledge compared to those who actually do the evaluating, recruiting, and coaching.
Maybe Bobby Petrino is a better coach that Ronald Prince. Maybe they can afford to not pull 4 star classes.
I know, the jury is still out on Prince, but it certainly isn't on Louisville, and that makes your comparison invalid, imo.
-
And one last comment...I have yet to come across one KState fan on these boards who would not like some 4 star kid so I'm not sure what you mean by the expectations.
I've seen many fans pretty much say we're better off without 4 and 5 stars. Mainly because of Chris Boggas, Daniel Davis, Jordy Nelson, and Terrence Newman.
I realize that's their way of making themselves feel better about missing out on top talent, but still....
-
and that makes your comparison invalid
Good to see that a few of you have established the rules for what is and isn't valid.
For the record I have stated repeatedly we are wait and see mode. I have no knowledge whether or not our current staff can evaluate talent...I will say that based on the talent Prince had on offense at Virginia that it sure as hell looks that way because Elton Brown, Ferguson, and a few others were not all everything w/ offers from everybody coming out of high school.
Having said that...good to see those points are invalid. Of course the same people who say that would have said "Bobby who" a few years ago about Bobby Petrino and would predict KSU lose to a Florida Atlantic prior to this season.
Prince may be the bomb and he may be bombed...nobody knows. But that still does not prove "recruiting stars = success".
-
oh God. Not this again.
-
Many beleive that there is a stong correlation between star rankings and winning. That entails two sorts of expectation: an expectation that we should be landing higher rated players and an expectation that we should win.
And while I noted your point I also see that you failed to acknowledge my point.
I haven't taken a position on recruting. I just meant to make a comment about how others view it. Given the responses above, I think the notion of expectations was appropriately invoked. Honestly, I don't care too much about who we recruit one way or the other in football.
oh God. Not this again.
I knew it would only take a little nudge to get it going. :)
-
chum1,
no bigs man...it's just an inexact "science"...nobody knows. I think it's foolish to argue stars and not because I don't think they don't mean a thing but because they don't mean EVERYTHING.
You, clams, fatty...I certainly don't think you are wrong and that I'm correct...no way. Hell, I'm pissed that we have all of these short skill players but we'll just see what happens.
about who we recruit one way or the other in football.
Having said that...there was an interesting post that occured elsewhere recently on one Billy Walker. As in no waiting for 12/15 to join the team. And that post deserves a few :dancin: :dancin: :dancin:
-
Look at this safety we just got. Not enough exp to garner those higher stars.
Stars=guesses. They are projections.
Look Ian Campbell. I don't know his HS stats but they didn't impress the Rivals or Scout networks.
If you recruit great athleticism then you can't go wrong.
Michael Bishop was a cruddy juco qb that no one wanted but was hell of an athlete.
Speed & Athleticism can't go wrong. They may not get the stars though.
-
One thing that can be true about STARS is that the player can 'usually' play sooner.
Most 4 or 5 star guys star immediately.
Matt Boss :yuck:
The reason we fell into a SH**HOLE is because of 2 years of f*****ing terrible Oline recruiting; Jucos didn't do sh**.
We converted a fat Dtackle to Oline - Wooldridge.(not basketball coach)
-
Michael Bishop was a cruddy juco qb
:bs:
Bishop led Blinn to 2 National Titles and was undefeated there.
-
bishop was about to go to tamu i think
-
and that makes your comparison invalid
Good to see that a few of you have established the rules for what is and isn't valid.
For the record I have stated repeatedly we are wait and see mode. I have no knowledge whether or not our current staff can evaluate talent...I will say that based on the talent Prince had on offense at Virginia that it sure as hell looks that way because Elton Brown, Ferguson, and a few others were not all everything w/ offers from everybody coming out of high school.
Having said that...good to see those points are invalid. Of course the same people who say that would have said "Bobby who" a few years ago about Bobby Petrino and would predict KSU lose to a Florida Atlantic prior to this season.
Prince may be the bomb and he may be bombed...nobody knows. But that still does not prove "recruiting stars = success".
And it's good to see that you can choose to ignore the part of my comment where I stated it was my opinion.
You can't compare what's going on at Louisville or WV with KSU unless all other things are equal.
They aren't. So what happens at WVU, Louisville, or anywhere else doesn't much matter here at KSU.
If you wanted to use a baseless arguement to defend your point why not just point out that Snyder won here at KSU before he ever landed any type of recruiting class. Synder was able to do it, so will Prince, right?
-
arguments can be made on both sides.
the side that argues high average star ratings leads to success will have a long list of examples.
the other side will have the exceptions.
texas four classes prior to their nc averaged 3.6, 3.5, 3.72 and 3.89. the team they played for the nc averaged 3.95, 4.05, 3.43, 3.50
usc's classes prior to their 2004 nc averaged 4.05, 3.43, 3.50. the team they played for the nc averaged 3.72, 3.58, 3.79
Here are the teams from bcs conferences that made the ap top ten the last two years (bold teams were top ten both years), and their star class averages from 2002-2005:
USC - 3.73
OU - 3.68
Texas - 3.68
Georgia - 3.54
LSU - 3.54
OSU - 3.54
ND - 3.18
PSU - 3.17
Auburn - 3.08
Alabama - 3.03
California - 2.95
V-Tech - 2.89
Iowa - 2.80
i left out west virginia, which you already noted as an exception.
if i had years prior to 2002 for rivals rankings, i would keep going.
-
Michael Bishop was a cruddy juco qb
:bs:
Bishop led Blinn to 2 National Titles and was undefeated there.
My mistake. :blank:
-
And it's good to see that you can choose to ignore the part of my comment where I stated it was my opinion.
You can't compare what's going on at Louisville or WV with KSU unless all other things are equal.
They aren't. So what happens at WVU, Louisville, or anywhere else doesn't much matter here at KSU.
If you wanted to use a baseless arguement to defend your point why not just point out that Snyder won here at KSU before he ever landed any type of recruiting class. Synder was able to do it, so will Prince, right?
I respecfully disagree.
I don't claim to be correct about the future of KSU program under Prince, you do. For the comparison to Louisville and West Virginia to be "baseless" you would have to prove Prince is incapable of getting the job done...you cannot. I cannot prove either way but I do not discount the possibility or probability of either happening...you do.
I am not saying Prince will or won't be successful and therefore the comparison exists as a possibility to an open minded individual but since you can forecast the future it is "baseless".
Of course there were probably "baseless" probabilities made 4 years ago when Petrino took over by fortune tellers abroad.
As for the comparison to Snyder...Snyder beat North Texas on the final play of the game in his first season. Prince has won 4 games to this point. I'm not sure where you were going w/ the Snyder "comparison". There is no way the job done the two coaches at this point in time or even after season #1 can be comparable as they had completely different programs to start.
-
Prince's resume is pretty comparable to Rich Rodriguez's.
-
(http://cavediving.org/fat%20man.gif) = (http://www.senatemajority.com/images/upload/Image/dramaqueen.jpg)
-
I can understand why some fans like the gratification of signing high-profile players, but it seems as if a lot of these type of players turn out to be busts.
Here are a few that come to mind.
Chris Boggas
Julius McMillian
Jerome Janet
Matt Boss
I'm sure there are a few who I'm missing, and I'm sure there are some blue-chippers who actually have panned out, too. But most of these players seem to be soft prima-donna types who don't value the hard work that it takes to win. I personally want a player who best fits the what the team is attempting to do and is willing to whatever they can to accomplish the team goals.
Just my .02 cents :D
-
I can understand why some fans like the gratification of signing high-profile players, but it seems as if a lot of these type of players turn out to be busts.
Here are a few that come to mind.
Chris Boggas
Julius McMillian
Jerome Janet
Matt Boss
I'm sure there are a few who I'm missing, and I'm sure there are some blue-chippers who actually have panned out, too. But most of these players seem to be soft prima-donna types who don't value the hard work that it takes to win. I personally want a player who best fits the what the team is attempting to do and is willing to whatever they can to accomplish the team goals.
Just my .02 cents :D
Maybe that says more about Bill Snyder's recruiting than the attitude of four star players.
Snyder passed on Freeman. Granted, it's still VERY early, but do you think he'll end up a prima donna bust?
-
I can understand why some fans like the gratification of signing high-profile players, but it seems as if a lot of these type of players turn out to be busts.
Here are a few that come to mind.
Chris Boggas
Julius McMillian
Jerome Janet
Matt Boss
I'm sure there are a few who I'm missing, and I'm sure there are some blue-chippers who actually have panned out, too. But most of these players seem to be soft prima-donna types who don't value the hard work that it takes to win. I personally want a player who best fits the what the team is attempting to do and is willing to whatever they can to accomplish the team goals.
Just my .02 cents :D
Maybe Snyder was only able to land the 4-star busts that weren't recruited as hard at traditionally 4-star schools?
Saying 4-star high profile players are usually busts, I don't get it. :frown:
-
I could really care less about the stars behind someone's name. There are many examples of 2* guys that make it to the NFL and 5* guys who don't amount to jackcrap.
It's not about stars, it's about evaluation. And we won't really know if Prince evaluated correctly for another 2-3 years.
-
Just a thought on Snyder. If its true that he didn't want Freeman that just re-affirms my belief that it was definitely time for him to go.
-
I could really care less about the stars behind someone's name. There are many examples of 2* guys that make it to the NFL and 5* guys who don't amount to jack**($.
It's not about stars, it's about evaluation. And we won't really know if Prince evaluated correctly for another 2-3 years.
Exactly. We put too much value in what these recruiting sites say.