For fun! (Give the 1999 class stars!)

[ksu_FAN]

I think that the way KSU fans follow recruiting has tempered over the years.  There used to be much more hype following it, but I think as we had more Chris Boggas and Daniel Davis types the enthusiasm became more realistic.  

And as far as stars go, the "diamond in the rough" method can work in football to build a really solid program, but there is no doubt the teams that stay in the top 10 year after year usually have a lot of 4 star players and not very many 2 star players.  Your odds get better of finding players the more of those 4 star guys you bring, even if many don't live up to their hype.  As has been talked about before, out of any football class if you can consistently have 12 or so of the 25 become contibutors you're doing pretty well.  Our problem was that lately as the program took a down turn that number was much lower in the single digits.  Its a nice story that our (arguably) top 3 players right now (Watts, Nelson, and Campbell) are former walk-ons, but its not the make-up of a program that is going to compete for the north title on a consistent basis.

[catzacker]

Is anyone here pretending that our recruiting has ever been top twenty caliber?  Just checking.

As it was rated or how it turned out? 

As it was rated.  There's a big misconception about how highly the recruits of that era were rated.  Some seem to think that they were rated higher than our recruits of the past five years or so.  That is simply not true.

See, I think our recruiting was "top 20" caliber during that time, but only because of how it produced, rather than the number of stars next to their names as seniors in highschool.  

Well, then that's just a stupid made up stat to make yourself feel better about recruiting because it is nothing more than another way of stating that we had a winning team.  No one else rates recruiting that way.  Why should KSU fans?

It's not a matter of rating, rather evaluating how that class played out over time.  It's fine if everyone wants to get excited over a top 15 recruiting class (2002), I'd rather get excited because in 3-4 years we actually won something with those recruits as the core of the team instead of going through 2 losing seasons their 3rd and 4th years. 

Again, you're not talking about recruiting, then.  You're talking about winning.  There's nothing wrong with that.  I just fail to see why so many KSU fans have trouble making these distinctions.

So when Snyder was hauling in top 40-60 classes and finishing in the top 25, was it just that every single recruiting service was retarded or that Snyder and Co. were excellent recruiters/evaluators, or that Snyder and Co. were magicians that could take crap talent and win 11 games?

[michigancat]

I'm just saying that it's completely meaningless to conclude that UF had the best recruting a few years ago based on the fact that they won the national title.  It's just as meaningless as concluding that UF had the best facilities based on the fact that they won the national title. 

OK.

[chum1]

So when Snyder was hauling in top 40-60 classes and finishing in the top 25, was it just that every single recruiting service was retarded or that Snyder and Co. were excellent recruiters/evaluators, or that Snyder and Co. were magicians that could take crap talent and win 11 games?

It could be that there is a lot more that goes into a winning team than how its players were evaluated out of high school.  I don't know why you didn't consider this option.

[yosh]

My contention is that the "experts" are pretty good at figuring out the top 5 to 10  out of highschool at each position.  After that, they are just completely lost, and they don't have a friggin clue about JUCO.  However, since they can get the top few correct, and the big name schools (Ohio St. UT, Florida schools ect.) get all those players, they keep their credibility.  The "stars matter" camp will always point to the fact that the top ten teams are generally the top 10 recruiting schools.  Since K-State doesn't fall in that catagory, it's a complete waste of time to follow the recruiting rankings.  

I am convinced that K-State has had so many 5-star busts, because Rivals just throws 4 or 5 stars on almost every JUCO that commits to K-State in response to how good the 96 class turned out.  They have been trying to figure out how to account for the Bishop, Kelly, McDonald factor for years...without actually having to watch JUCO players.  The 96 class was the first class I followed during recruiting.  It wasn't even top 40 at the time, but in hindsight, it probably should have been number 1.  It's the reason we started to get top 25 classes...not because we were getting better talent, but because the "experts" were trying to adjust for what we were getting.  They continually guessed wrong for years.  

[ksu_FAN]

I think most of the services have gotten "better" at how they do their rankings; they get much more film and have gotten better on how they evaluate it.  That said, college football still shows that recruiting rankings are at best an inexact science on a consistent basis.

[catzacker]

So when Snyder was hauling in top 40-60 classes and finishing in the top 25, was it just that every single recruiting service was retarded or that Snyder and Co. were excellent recruiters/evaluators, or that Snyder and Co. were magicians that could take crap talent and win 11 games?

It could be that there is a lot more that goes into a winning team than how its players were evaluated out of high school.  I don't know why you didn't consider this option.

I think I'm confused, because I complete agree with that line of thinking.  I don't put too much stock into football recruiting rankings, but at the same time I understand that, generally speaking, the rankings do in part provide some insight in predicting future success.

[Skycat]

There was an ESPN column in the late 90's early 00's that had a composite top 25 ranking for the previous x number of years and compared it with a composite top 25 recruiting list for the same number of years.  The correlation between the two lists was striking.  Snyder's teams were singled out for being the sole program that showed up highly on the former list, by not on the later one.

What that tells me is that you can build a great team without highly ranked recruiting classes, but it's not that likely.  Prince has yet to show that he has that kind of ability.  And the odds are strongly against him if he doesn't sign highly regarded classes.

[fatty fat fat]

It could be that there is a lot more that goes into a winning team than how its players were evaluated out of high school.

Not really, no.

[michigancat]

It could be that there is a lot more that goes into a winning team than how its players were evaluated out of high school.  I don't know why you didn't consider this option.

True, but what changed for KSU, starting with the 2004 season?  The coaching staff only lost one person over Snyder's last 4 seasons.  The S&C program didn't change.  The facilities didn't change.  What made us start losing?

[chum1]

It could be that there is a lot more that goes into a winning team than how its players were evaluated out of high school.

Not really, no.

You can't win this argument.  You think there is a one-to-one correlation between recruiting and winning.

[chum1]

It could be that there is a lot more that goes into a winning team than how its players were evaluated out of high school.  I don't know why you didn't consider this option.

True, but what changed for KSU, starting with the 2004 season?  The coaching staff only lost one person over Snyder's last 4 seasons.  The S&C program didn't change.  The facilities didn't change.  What made us start losing?

Hell if I know.  It probably has something to do with a growing apathy in general, though.  The recruiting process certainly didn't change that much, did it?

[michigancat]

Hell if I know.  It probably has something to do with a growing apathy in general, though.  The recruiting process certainly didn't change that much, did it?

Who was apathetic?  The coaches?

Is there a one-to-one correlation between apathy and wins?

[Saulbadguy]

It could be that there is a lot more that goes into a winning team than how its players were evaluated out of high school.  I don't know why you didn't consider this option.

True, but what changed for KSU, starting with the 2004 season?  The coaching staff only lost one person over Snyder's last 4 seasons.  The S&C program didn't change.  The facilities didn't change.  What made us start losing?

Poor recruiting.

[chum1]

Hell if I know.  It probably has something to do with a growing apathy in general, though.  The recruiting process certainly didn't change that much, did it?

Who was apathetic?  The coaches?

Whoever it was, there were too many of them.

Is there a one-to-one correlation between apathy and wins?

Enough apathy is sufficient for losing.  There's no question about that.  Now that I think about it, the notion of complacency probably provides a better stab-in-the-dark explanation than apathy.

[michigancat]

Enough apathy is sufficient for losing.  There's no question about that.  Now that I think about it, the notion of complacency probably provides a better stab-in-the-dark explanation than apathy.

Is apathy (or lack thereof) a stronger factor in determining wins/losses than evaluation of high school talent?

[chum1]

Enough apathy is sufficient for losing.  There's no question about that.  Now that I think about it, the notion of complacency probably provides a better stab-in-the-dark explanation than apathy.

Is apathy (or lack thereof) a stronger factor in determining wins/losses than evaluation of high school talent?

You ask weird questions, man.  Apathy can trump talent.  That's all you need for the explanation of the downfall.

[ksu_FAN]

Sometimes people get comfortable.  Sometimes they don't work as hard as they used to.  Sometimes change is good. 

1 of 2 changes were necessary when Snyder retired; Snyder retiring or Snyder firing most of his staff.

We'll see if the change that happened ends up good.  Year 1 was a success even with the finish.

[FBWillie]

Prince has yet to show that he has that kind of ability. 

Did everyone know that snyder was going to be the winner he turned out to be in his first year?

[catzacker]

I'll give a captain obvious statement: The fall of the program was due to the same reasons as the rise of the program: (1) KSU had talented assistant coaches (6 went on to be head coaches, 7 if you count Del Miller) that (2) brought in talented players (whether they had stars or not is irrelevant) in part because of (3) the lack of success by OU and UT and (4) developed and motivated those players to play at a high level....We were never the same program since the players that BV, Mike Stoops, and the fat man recruited graduated.  Recruiting drove the rise and fall, the assistants facilitated that recruiting (and development). 

[yosh]

There was an ESPN column in the late 90's early 00's that had a composite top 25 ranking for the previous x number of years and compared it with a composite top 25 recruiting list for the same number of years.  The correlation between the two lists was striking.  Snyder's teams were singled out for being the sole program that showed up highly on the former list, by not on the later one.

What that tells me is that you can build a great team without highly ranked recruiting classes, but it's not that likely.  Prince has yet to show that he has that kind of ability.  And the odds are strongly against him if he doesn't sign highly regarded classes.

I don't remember that particular column, but I do remember that teams like VaTech, Oregon, Oregon St., Wisconson and Southern Miss. (to name a few) were doing very well without the top recruiting classes.  K-State was clearly the best at it though.  Even Nebraska and OU of the 90's are decent examles, as NU class were generally in the 20's while they were winning multiple MNCs and OUs (prestoops) were in the teens while not making or barely making bowl games.

[ksuno1stunner]

Chum, look at the schools we were beating out then.

Then look at right now.

[chum1]

Chum, look at the schools we were beating out then.

Then look at right now.

If you're saying that we're going to suck, I have to agree.

[ksuno1stunner]

Chum, look at the schools we were beating out then.

Then look at right now.

If you're saying that we're going to suck, I have to agree.

I got you to sidestep.  Best moment of my life.

[chum1]

I was trying not to be mean.  Now, which time frames are we talking about?  This is critical for arriving at your predetermined desired answer, so think ahead carefully.

[ksuno1stunner]

I was trying not to be mean.  Now, which time frames are we talking about?  This is critical for arriving at your predetermined desired answer, so think ahead carefully.

We should check out 1999 first.

[ksuno1stunner]

http://members.tripod.com/peitsch/99recruits.htm

DT - Anthony Bates ---------- 6'1'' 280 4.80  I feel bad. (RIP)
WR - LaRoy Bias ------------- 6'0'' 180 4.40  Top 50 midlands.  Top 30 wr.
LB - Josh Buhl --------------- 6'0'' 193 4.40    Top 20 lb.  Beat out NU, SU, Baylor.
WR - Derrick Evans -------- 5'11'' 165 4.40    Top 10 wr in Big 12 region.  Beat CU, CSU, ASU, WSU, and Michigan.
DT - Mario Fatafehi ---------- 6'2'' 295 4.95    1st team Juco AA.  Beat out BYU, ASU NU, UW, and WSU.
OL - John Gardner ---------- 6'10'' 280 5.00    Top 5 OL in MoKan region.  Beat ku, CU, CSU, NW.
RB - Joe Hall ----------------- 6'2'' 260 4.59    Beat UNLV, Bama, OU, and Utah.
LB - Bryan Hickman --------- 6'2'' 215 4.60    Top 100 in TX.  Beat MU, Cuse, ASU, and TAMU.
TE - Thomas Hill ------------- 6'5'' 250 4.80    Played for 2 years.
DE - Cliff Holloman ---------- 6'3'' 265 4.75    Top 5 Juco player.  Could be 5 stars I guess.  Beat ku, Tennessee, Purdue, and Houston.
OL - Oshin Honarchian ------ 6'5'' 280 5.20    Top 100 Juco.  Beat South Carolina.
DE - Thomas Houchin ------- 6'4'' 240 4.80    Nothing special, beat Tulsa.
RB - Rashad Jackson ------- 5'10'' 190 4.40    Top KS rb.
WR - Ricky Lloyd ------------5'10'' 180 4.40    Nothing special.
OL - Matt Martin ------------- 6'6'' 260 4.90    Nothing special.
RB - Danny Morris ----------- 6'0'' 200 4.50    Top 10 rb in nation.  Beat out Ohio State, OSU, OU, Tennessee, CSU.
DT - Justin Montgomery -----6'2'' 280 4.90    Nothing special.
LB - Terry Pierce ------------ 6'3'' 235 4.60    Committed to MU, then switched.
FB - Brandt Quick ----------- 6'1'' 235 4.70    Top 20 at FB.  Beat Tulane, NW, MSU, LSU.
OL - Ben Rettele ------------ 6'4'' 280 5.10    Nothing special.
QB - Ell Roberson ----------- 6'1'' 190 4.50    Top 25 qb.  Named top offensive player in TX.  Beat Arizona, ND, and Mizzou.
DE - Andrew Shull ----------- 6'5'' 225 4.79    Top de in MO.
DB - Rashad Washington ---- 6'4'' 210 4.40    Top MoKan player.
DB - Errick Wilson ----------- 6'0'' 170 4.58    Juco placement.
DE - Corey White ------------ 6'3'' 235 4.80    Beat MU and OSU, Juco placement.
WR - George Williams ------- 6'1'' 190 4.38     Good stats, and fast.

[fatty fat fat]

No, it is one-one.

[ksuno1stunner]

No, it is one-one.

What else could it be?

[tmramrod91]

The fall of the program IMO happened 80% due to the talent/experience at the assistant coach positions. From coordinator all the way down. Bielma was the last gifted coordinator we had, and look what he's doin as a HC. If Snyder could've somehow hung on to him another couple years, he would be the HC right now. Why Snyder couldnt get the same level of coordinators, etc in as he did in the 90's is unknown. Maybe it was apathy on his part, maybe the well just ran dry and he ran out of connections.
KSU's talent level (perception wise out of high school) has never been among the nations elite. Snyder (and more importantly assistants) ability to spot talent and develop it diminished in the last years of his tenure. Hence, suckage.
And...a lot of the lack of supposed talent had to do with everyone finally picking up on Snyder's brilliance of gleaning the JUCO ranks for top talent. He truly was an innovator there.