For fun! (Give the 1999 class stars!)

[ksuno1stunner]

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

DT - Anthony Bates ---------- 6'1'' 280 4.80  (RIP)
WR - LaRoy Bias ------------- 6'0'' 180 4.40 
LB - Josh Buhl --------------- 6'0'' 193 4.40   
WR - Derrick Evans -------- 5'11'' 165 4.40   
DT - Mario Fatafehi ---------- 6'2'' 295 4.95   
OL - John Gardner ---------- 6'10'' 280 5.00   
RB - Joe Hall ----------------- 6'2'' 260 4.59   
LB - Bryan Hickman --------- 6'2'' 215 4.60   
TE - Thomas Hill ------------- 6'5'' 250 4.80   
DE - Cliff Holloman ---------- 6'3'' 265 4.75   
OL - Oshin Honarchian ------ 6'5'' 280 5.20   
DE - Thomas Houchin ------- 6'4'' 240 4.80   
RB - Rashad Jackson ------- 5'10'' 190 4.40   
WR - Ricky Lloyd ------------5'10'' 180 4.40   
OL - Matt Martin ------------- 6'6'' 260 4.90   
RB - Danny Morris ----------- 6'0'' 200 4.50   
DT - Justin Montgomery -----6'2'' 280 4.90   
LB - Terry Pierce ------------ 6'3'' 235 4.60   
FB - Brandt Quick ----------- 6'1'' 235 4.70   
OL - Ben Rettele ------------ 6'4'' 280 5.10   
QB - Ell Roberson ----------- 6'1'' 190 4.50   
DE - Andrew Shull ----------- 6'5'' 225 4.79   
DB - Rashad Washington ---- 6'4'' 210 4.40   
DB - Errick Wilson ----------- 6'0'' 170 4.58   
DE - Corey White ------------ 6'3'' 235 4.80   
WR - George Williams ------- 6'1'' 190 4.38   

[SkyWalkJUSTforFUN]

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

DT - Anthony Bates ---------- 6'1'' 280 4.80  (RIP)
WR - LaRoy Bias ------------- 6'0'' 180 4.40 
LB - Josh Buhl --------------- 6'0'' 193 4.40   
WR - Derrick Evans -------- 5'11'' 165 4.40   
DT - Mario Fatafehi ---------- 6'2'' 295 4.95   
OL - John Gardner ---------- 6'10'' 280 5.00   
RB - Joe Hall ----------------- 6'2'' 260 4.59   
LB - Bryan Hickman --------- 6'2'' 215 4.60   
TE - Thomas Hill ------------- 6'5'' 250 4.80   
DE - Cliff Holloman ---------- 6'3'' 265 4.75   
OL - Oshin Honarchian ------ 6'5'' 280 5.20   
DE - Thomas Houchin ------- 6'4'' 240 4.80   
RB - Rashad Jackson ------- 5'10'' 190 4.40   
WR - Ricky Lloyd ------------5'10'' 180 4.40   
OL - Matt Martin ------------- 6'6'' 260 4.90   
RB - Danny Morris ----------- 6'0'' 200 4.50   
DT - Justin Montgomery -----6'2'' 280 4.90   
LB - Terry Pierce ------------ 6'3'' 235 4.60   
FB - Brandt Quick ----------- 6'1'' 235 4.70   
OL - Ben Rettele ------------ 6'4'' 280 5.10   
QB - Ell Roberson ----------- 6'1'' 190 4.50   
DE - Andrew Shull ----------- 6'5'' 225 4.79   
DB - Rashad Washington ---- 6'4'' 210 4.40   
DB - Errick Wilson ----------- 6'0'' 170 4.58   
DE - Corey White ------------ 6'3'' 235 4.80   
WR - George Williams ------- 6'1'' 190 4.38   

Lol at Bias 4 stars & Terry Pierce @ 2.

ksuno1stunner.....do you have anymore from years that aren't in the rivals database, it would be interesting to look back and see.

[ksu_FAN]

Some good memories there.

Terry Pierce - 2 stars.  Wow.

George Williams - great game in the big comeback in Stillwater, pretty much nothing else in his career.

Fatefehi, Roberson, and Washington all pretty much lived up to their stars.  LaRoy Bias and Danny Morris, not so much.  Cliff Holloman was a solid but not great player.

[waks]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Stunner put those stars up on his own. I don't think that is what anyone else rated them as.

(Give the 1999 class stars!)

[michigancat]

Some good memories there.

Terry Pierce - 2 stars.  Wow.

George Williams - great game in the big comeback in Stillwater, pretty much nothing else in his career.

Fatefehi, Roberson, and Washington all pretty much lived up to their stars.  LaRoy Bias and Danny Morris, not so much.  Cliff Holloman was a solid but not great player.

Really, the defensive recruiting was incredible.  Pretty much everyone was a starter or solid contributer by 2003 except Corey White and Erick Wilson (<-???).  I mean, that's really awesome.

[ksu_FAN]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Stunner put those stars up on his own. I don't think that is what anyone else rated them as.

(Give the 1999 class stars!)

That could be.  It looks about what those guys were rated when they were signed though.

And Rusty is right, that was a pretty good class, especially on defense. 

[catzacker]

Wasn't the 1999 class recruited, primarily, by BV, Mike Stoops, and the fat man?  I think the exception was Pierce who Bennett brought in.  And people want to give Snyder so much credit.   

[coitus]

danny morris was a solid 4 star player....but only if you consider st play.

[ksu_FAN]

danny morris was a solid 4 star player....but only if you consider st play.

True, solid on ST.  When you consider his impact at RB though, he was probably more like a 3 star contributor.  Not a bad thing, but not a star.  I think for a 4 star to live up to expectations they have to make All Big 12 in some form.

[coitus]

yeah, morris and eric gooden arrived in back to back years as fairly highly touted oklahoma rbs.  neither ever really did much at rb though. 

[ksu_FAN]

yeah, morris and eric gooden arrived in back to back years as fairly highly touted oklahoma rbs.  neither ever really did much at rb though. 

Gooden was the most upright running RB I've ever seen try to play D1.  And he was well over 6'.  Don't know how that guy got as touted as he was.

And I'll give Morris credit that he did play through knee problems in his time at KSU which probably affected his abilities.

[chum1]

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

[yosh]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Stunner put those stars up on his own. I don't think that is what anyone else rated them as.

(Give the 1999 class stars!)

Yes...I may be getting old, but I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a single 4-star in that class (rivals).  Definitely not seven.  The top guys in that class were Buhl and Roberson who were both 3 star.  The vast majority of that class was 2-star.  I don't think K-State was amoung the top 50 classes overall.  Back in those days, we were happy to get a three star player.  All JUCOs were just automatically 2-star. From the 97 class to the 00 class (our best teams ever) there were a grand total of 2 players higher than 3-stars.  The football rankings are a joke and always have been.  Took me 10 years to figure that out.

I think what Stunner is asking people to do is read the descriptions on the link of each player, then rank them as though you didn't know how they actually performed.

[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? 

[chum1]

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.

[chum1]

Back in those days, we were happy to get a three star player.

In 1999, we weren't too far removed from having a celebration when we landed a running back that could run a 4.5 40.

[michigancat]

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.

Not really.  Most KSU fans pull out the "Terrence Newman stars don't matter" argument all the time.

I think the real argument should be that following football recruiting is about as silly as it can get, because you can't tell how good a class really was until at least 4 years later.  Obviously, our classes from 2000-02 or 03 were pretty crapty, regardless of star ratings.

[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.  

[chum1]

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.

Not really.  Most KSU fans pull out the "Terrence Newman stars don't matter" argument all the time.

I think the real argument should be that following football recruiting is about as silly as it can get, because you can't tell how good a class really was until at least 4 years later.  Obviously, our classes from 2000-02 or 03 were pretty @#%$ty, regardless of star ratings.

1.  KSU fans are wildly inconsistent.  2.  Football recruiting would be fun if we were actually competing for major players on a regular basis.  3.  I don't think that there is much of a correlation of any kind between the success of a particular player and his recruting ranking let alone a correlation between the success of a team and any of its recruiting classes.

[chum1]

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?

[ChicoRodriguez]

Jackson and Washington should probably either both be three or both be four.  They were both about the same caliber and had the same hype coming out of high school. Jackson ended up getting into trouble and Washington didn't work out at RB so they moved him to safety.  I still remember how big the Wichita city league game against each other was.  The front page of the Eagle had Rashad vs. Rashad as the headliner.

[sonofdaxjones]

Again, this why I laugh when people piss and moan about our recruiting and do so in a manner that implies that KSU was some sort of 4 and 5 star recruiting machine under Snyder.  

Then the fallback is, "well look at the recruiting classes for Florida, Texas, Ohio State, USC, all national champions."  Point noted, however, college football doesn't play its national championship through to the end.  College football uses an overwrought popularity contest just to determine who gets to play for a National Championship.   It's quite possible depending how their schedule plays out over the last couple of weeks of the season, for a school to project forward who they might face in a possible National Championship.  Literally having 2 to 3 weeks to put together preliminary game plans on possible opponents, and then have 6 weeks to prepare for the actual opponent and the game itself.  

Lets see how Jim Tressel, Mack Brown, Bobby Stoops, and Pete Carroll do with a week to prepare in a playoff system.

[KSUIntegrity22]

Again, this why I laugh when people piss and moan about our recruiting and do so in a manner that implies that KSU was some sort of 4 and 5 star recruiting machine under Snyder.  

Then the fallback is, "well look at the recruiting classes for Florida, Texas, Ohio State, USC, all national champions."  Point noted, however, college football doesn't play its national championship through to the end.  College football uses an overwrought popularity contest just to determine who gets to play for a National Championship.   It's quite possible depending how their schedule plays out over the last couple of weeks of the season, for a school to project forward who they might face in a possible National Championship.  Literally having 2 to 3 weeks to put together preliminary game plans on possible opponents, and then have 6 weeks to prepare for the actual opponent and the game itself.  

Lets see how Jim Tressel, Mack Brown, Bobby Stoops, and Pete Carroll do with a week to prepare in a playoff system.

Better than we would... Tressel, Stoops, and Carroll are all extremely good coaches. Its not just their players. I think the jury is still out on Brown. He's a good motivator, and he looked good in the Rose Bowl with VY, but maybe that was only because of VY.

[michigancat]

Again, this why I laugh when people piss and moan about our recruiting and do so in a manner that implies that KSU was some sort of 4 and 5 star recruiting machine under Snyder. 

No, they're implying they have no idea if Prince is as good at identifying hidden gems and developing talent as Snyder.  They'd be cool with 2 and 3 stars if Prince had Snyder's pre-exodus track record. 

Since Prince pretty much talked crap on Snyder's late recruiting and has no track record, "star rating" is what people are going to use to measure Prince's recruiting success, at least until we have more information.

[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. 

[KSUIntegrity22]

The whole "building the middle depth of the team" theme really seems to have worked. You don't see as much of a dropoff as we use to... It was like, "oh god, Buhl is out, who the hell is this white boy..." I'm very happy with what Prince has done.

Some signings I wasn't in favor with, such as Drinkgern and Roepke. Luckily neither of them are working out...

[chum1]

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.

[sonofdaxjones]

Again, this why I laugh when people piss and moan about our recruiting and do so in a manner that implies that KSU was some sort of 4 and 5 star recruiting machine under Snyder.  

Then the fallback is, "well look at the recruiting classes for Florida, Texas, Ohio State, USC, all national champions."  Point noted, however, college football doesn't play its national championship through to the end.  College football uses an overwrought popularity contest just to determine who gets to play for a National Championship.   It's quite possible depending how their schedule plays out over the last couple of weeks of the season, for a school to project forward who they might face in a possible National Championship.  Literally having 2 to 3 weeks to put together preliminary game plans on possible opponents, and then have 6 weeks to prepare for the actual opponent and the game itself.  

Lets see how Jim Tressel, Mack Brown, Bobby Stoops, and Pete Carroll do with a week to prepare in a playoff system.

Better than we would... Tressel, Stoops, and Carroll are all extremely good coaches. Its not just their players. I think the jury is still out on Brown. He's a good motivator, and he looked good in the Rose Bowl with VY, but maybe that was only because of VY.

The problem is we'll never know, and a short turnaround against an unfamiliar, well coached opponent negates both talent and coaching to a degree.   Every good coach already has a preliminary game plan done for every opponent next season.   You don't get that luxury in a playoff system.

I think the biggest thing overall for a school like KSU as others have noted is have a lot of good players, they don't have to be superstars, and plenty of good depth.  

It was a lot of fun winning a ton of games with guys like Nyle Wiren and Travis Ochs.

[michigancat]

Again, you're not talking about recruiting, then.  You're talking about winning.

The two obviously aren't connected in any way.

[chum1]

Again, you're not talking about recruiting, then.  You're talking about winning.

The two obviously aren't connected in any way.

I didn't say that.  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.  Or the best coaches.  Or the best trainers.  Or the best equipment.  This view of recruting doesn't bring anything new to the discussion - it is just a way of restating that we had a winning team.