New KSU football roster including recruits......

[catzacker]

Someone needs to do a breakdown of hometown states.

Here's a rough breakdown:

1   Ark
1   Conn
1   GA
1   Iowa
1   MASS
1   MD
1   Va
3   CO
3   ILL
3   OK
5   Neb
7   CA
7   MO
8   Fla
15   TE
42   KS

[chum1]

Snyder made KSU fans think that they were more knowledgable than they truly are in several different areas.  One of these is recruiting.  Whether you believe the myth that Snyder was a master of finding the hidden gem or that he merely had a scrub friendly system, he took groups of players that not many D1 programs were hot for and a few of them would end up being great college players.  KSU fans touted these players when they were recruits (along with all of the others that did not pan out) and then mistakenly inferred from this that they knew something about evaluating recruits.  On the rare occasion that a KSU fan evaluated the recruit of another, less succesful program, the review was almost always a bad one.  

[Poopley]

lol 

[fatty fat fat]

Someone needs to do a breakdown of hometown states.

Here's a rough breakdown:

1   Ark
1   Conn
1   GA
1   Iowa
1   MASS
1   MD
1   Va
3   CO
3   ILL
3   OK
5   Neb
7   CA
7   MO
8   Fla
15   TE
42   KS

 

[yosh]

Snyder made KSU fans think that they were more knowledgable than they truly are in several different areas.  One of these is recruiting.  Whether you believe the myth that Snyder was a master of finding the hidden gem or that he merely had a scrub friendly system, he took groups of players that not many D1 programs were hot for and a few of them would end up being great college players.  KSU fans touted these players when they were recruits (along with all of the others that did not pan out) and then mistakenly inferred from this that they knew something about evaluating recruits.  On the rare occasion that a KSU fan evaluated the recruit of another, less succesful program, the review was almost always a bad one.  

There is a lot of truth in this post, but it doesn't change the fact that Rivals sucks.  Rivals has never even been close on a K-State football class.  Never even remotely close.   

[chum1]

Rivals sucks.  Rivals has never even been close on a K-State football class.  Never even remotely close.

Either that or recruiting rankings are based more on potential than on outcomes.  No one really disputes that Snyder's teams played above their potential or that John Blake's OU teams played well below theirs, right?

[fatty fat fat]

Hasn't rivals consistently had our class in the 40's since 2001? Seems decently accurate.

[Sandman]

So I'm supposed to take your word over Rivals because you ". . . watch a few video clips"?  Don't they watch the same clips you do, and probably a heck of a lot more?  So wouldn't you think they would know a smidge more than you.

I never suggested you had to believe and I really don't care.  But I will say that rivals NEVER received video of McDaniel, Haynes, or Harris so they would have a hard time judging the better player over Walls now wouldn't they?

McDaniel was defensive player of the year in St. Louis metro according to St. Louis Post Dispatch and had over 1K receiving yards as a receiver as well.  And he long jumped nearly 24 feet.  Sounds like a bit of a player huh?

Harris...well he's 6-4 220 and played safety for East St. Louis and the hit he makes on the receiver on KSU's official site...lol. 

Haynes...hits like a train, 6 feet, and qualified for the state track meet in 100 and 200 in Florida's largest classification.

We're not talking about podunk kids...we're talking about kids rivals barely followed because they were not going to qualify.

So I will reiterate...out of the 6 I think Walls is 4th most talented.  He's an undersized LB..oh, he's good but he's not as talented as the 3 mentioned.

And I'm spent..have a good one.

But how does this review then jive with your earlier assertion that losing any of these guys is no big deal?  You can't have it both ways.  You're "spent" after describing their wonderful athletic/football qualities, but would ridicule anyone saying that losing these guys somehow affects the quality of the class.  chum1 is pretty much dead on, I believe.

[ksu4tc]

#5 Ernie Pierce

Think someone told him about Qunicy Morgan and James Terry and the "history" of wearing that number as a receiver for KSU.

Hope he's as good as those two (well, a better route runner than Terry).

[Pett]

Around the same height as both also. Probably taller at a legit 6'4" with Terry and Morgan at 6'3" & 6'4".

[fatty fat fat]

(well, a better route runner than Terry).

Ha! Remember that time Ell gave James a stern look after he botched a route in the big 12 ccg?

LOL! I loved those guys! Loved!

[Pett]

Lol, yea.....James was barely even running that slant pattern. And almost got intercepted by Perkins. Luckily, it wasn't.

 

[KSU4ME]

Around the same height as both also. Probably taller at a legit 6'4" with Terry and Morgan at 6'3" & 6'4".

Morgan was 6'1", and that's being generous.

[The Manhatter]

But how does this review then jive with your earlier assertion that losing any of these guys is no big deal?  You can't have it both ways.  You're "spent" after describing their wonderful athletic/football qualities, but would ridicule anyone saying that losing these guys somehow affects the quality of the class.  chum1 is pretty much dead on, I believe.

It's really quite simple so don't make it difficult.

1) We never expected Harris, Haynes, Evans, or McDaniel to make it.  There were no expectations..how will we "miss" players who were never coming as freshman in the first place?  All were placements from the first we knew about them.

2) We knew they were placements but beak and Nubb didn't necessarily know that.  And both beak and Nubb, as you can see by some message board threads, think the next guy who doesn't qualify is "KSU will really miss without that guy"...funny thing is he was a nobody until he was a non-qualifier.

Good.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

[The Manhatter]

Yosh,

Thanks but I certainly don't feel I do a better job than rivals.  I think any of us...if we viewed some video clips of some kids can "guess" better than rivals but not w/ great accuracy.  It's all hit or miss and because of that why not form our own opinions of kids?  The evaluations from the different recruiting services can wildly vary once you get out of the no-brainer top 100 types.

[Sandman]

But how does this review then jive with your earlier assertion that losing any of these guys is no big deal?  You can't have it both ways.  You're "spent" after describing their wonderful athletic/football qualities, but would ridicule anyone saying that losing these guys somehow affects the quality of the class.  chum1 is pretty much dead on, I believe.

It's really quite simple so don't make it difficult.

1) We never expected Harris, Haynes, Evans, or McDaniel to make it.  There were no expectations..how will we "miss" players who were never coming as freshman in the first place?  All were placements from the first we knew about them.

2) We knew they were placements but beak and Nubb didn't necessarily know that.  And both beak and Nubb, as you can see by some message board threads, think the next guy who doesn't qualify is "KSU will really miss without that guy"...funny thing is he was a nobody until he was a non-qualifier.

Good.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

"We?"  Explain to me who "we" is.  My guess is most KSU fans are not included on the "we", or else this thread would have never existed.

And isn't it a bit dangerous to offer and get commitments from so many players who (according to you) it was well known that they would not qualify?  Why not use those schollies on players who will be at KSU 4/5 years instead of players who maybe will have two years eligibility at KSU, if they don't transfer to another school after being at a JUCO.  Do you trust JUCO's to develop players better than the KSU coaching staff.

I guess my point is, why offer players who you know as a certainty won't make it to campus?  At least not for two years.  Why not use the schollies on players who can be in the program long term?

[WildCatzPhreak]

What was that about Walls not making it?   

[The Manhatter]

"We?"  Explain to me who "we" is.  My guess is most KSU fans are not included on the "we", or else this thread would have never existed.

We would be just about anybody on this board or on the gpc and scout sites who read recruiting updates or see the discussion.  So "we" includes quite a few KSU fans who saw comments from these kids where it said, "I have to go to juco first" or who noticed posts showing that these kids signed dual letter of intents(one to KSU and one to a JC)

That is "we".  A lot of people knew this...glad I could clear that up for you.

And isn't it a bit dangerous to offer and get commitments from so many players who (according to you) it was well known that they would not qualify?  Why not use those schollies on players who will be at KSU 4/5 years instead of players who maybe will have two years eligibility at KSU, if they don't transfer to another school after being at a JUCO.  Do you trust JUCO's to develop players better than the KSU coaching staff.

Time for some education.  Take a seat and open your ears.  Schools can sign as many as they want.  If they want to sign 40 they can sign 40.  They can only admit 25 per class...that is the NCAA limit.  But only up to the 85.  If a program has 63 kids on scholarship going into the fall from the previous year they can only sign 22.  Some can count back which are mid-year signees.

The point is...signing a kid destined for JC does not take someone's scholie.  And programs sign JC kids because the JC's protect those kids for them.  JC's do not have a big recruiting budget...they rely on contacts from BCS programs to send them kids...and in return that JC will will prevent the recruitment of the kid from other programs.  It's called a "sign and place" and the kid knows going into that JC that if the same coach is at the BCS school where they signed they will be signing w/ that BCS school again should they want them again.  That is the way it works...period.

So basically KSU gets Haynes, Harris, McDaniel, and whoever else doesn't make it, in two years if KSU wants them.  And their signing this year did not "take up" a scholarship from some kid who could be at KSU for 4/5 years.

Glad I could be of some assistance.

[waks]

But how does this review then jive with your earlier assertion that losing any of these guys is no big deal?  You can't have it both ways.  You're "spent" after describing their wonderful athletic/football qualities, but would ridicule anyone saying that losing these guys somehow affects the quality of the class.  chum1 is pretty much dead on, I believe.

It's really quite simple so don't make it difficult.

1) We never expected Harris, Haynes, Evans, or McDaniel to make it.  There were no expectations..how will we "miss" players who were never coming as freshman in the first place?  All were placements from the first we knew about them.

2) We knew they were placements but beak and Nubb didn't necessarily know that.  And both beak and Nubb, as you can see by some message board threads, think the next guy who doesn't qualify is "KSU will really miss without that guy"...funny thing is he was a nobody until he was a non-qualifier.

Good.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

"We?"  Explain to me who "we" is.  My guess is most KSU fans are not included on the "we", or else this thread would have never existed.

And isn't it a bit dangerous to offer and get commitments from so many players who (according to you) it was well known that they would not qualify?  Why not use those schollies on players who will be at KSU 4/5 years instead of players who maybe will have two years eligibility at KSU, if they don't transfer to another school after being at a JUCO.  Do you trust JUCO's to develop players better than the KSU coaching staff.

I guess my point is, why offer players who you know as a certainty won't make it to campus?  At least not for two years.  Why not use the schollies on players who can be in the program long term?

Yeah, you should definitely stop talking now. You officially know nothing.

[Sandman]

We would be just about anybody on this board or on the gpc and scout sites who read recruiting updates or see the discussion.  So "we" includes quite a few KSU fans who saw comments from these kids where it said, "I have to go to juco first" or who noticed posts showing that these kids signed dual letter of intents(one to KSU and one to a JC)

That is "we".  A lot of people knew this...glad I could clear that up for you.



Time for some education.  Take a seat and open your ears.  Schools can sign as many as they want.  If they want to sign 40 they can sign 40.  They can only admit 25 per class...that is the NCAA limit.  But only up to the 85.  If a program has 63 kids on scholarship going into the fall from the previous year they can only sign 22.  Some can count back which are mid-year signees.

The point is...signing a kid destined for JC does not take someone's scholie.  And programs sign JC kids because the JC's protect those kids for them.  JC's do not have a big recruiting budget...they rely on contacts from BCS programs to send them kids...and in return that JC will will prevent the recruitment of the kid from other programs.  It's called a "sign and place" and the kid knows going into that JC that if the same coach is at the BCS school where they signed they will be signing w/ that BCS school again should they want them again.  That is the way it works...period.

So basically KSU gets Haynes, Harris, McDaniel, and whoever else doesn't make it, in two years if KSU wants them.  And their signing this year did not "take up" a scholarship from some kid who could be at KSU for 4/5 years.

Glad I could be of some assistance.

Again, if this is such common knowledge to KSU fans then why does this thread exist?  And no need to be defensive.  It's just a discussion.

On to this fabulous recruiting technique. Makes you wonder who's looking out for the kids' best interest.  Certainly isn't the JUCO or the school the kid initially committed to.  But something tells me the kid could chose whatever school he wants after his time at a JUCO is up.  Please give me examples of players where KSU has done this and then the kid did end up at KSU after JUCO. 

Anyway, the past two years KSU has signed 63 players (according to Rivals).  31 last year, 32 this year.  No one else is even close.  I'm curious, and I assume you know, how many of those 63 are being placed in JUCO's with an obligation to KSU when their time is up?  And if the 63 is not accurate, please correct me.

[WildCatzPhreak]

Please give me examples of players where KSU has done this and then the kid did end up at KSU after JUCO. 

There are lots, but the one that immediately comes to mind for me is Gary Chandler.

[Poopley]

In addition to Chandler, here are some more guys: Justin McKinney, Ced Wilson, Mike Weiner, Jermaine Berry, and I've heard we placed Greg Wafford, but I've also heard otherwise. We've also placed guys who ended up not cutting it academically such as Jerry Hill or Jerrell someone, a DE who tore it up at a texas juco but didn't qualify and went D-1; guys who ended up not being cut out for D-1 such as Lester Graham who last I heard had transferred to a lower division school in Michigan; and guys like Nevin MacKenzie and Reynaldo Hill, who ended up elsewhere b/c of a coaching change or b/c the previous asst. coach in charge of recruiting Dodge completely &@#%ed up.

The SEC signs and places kids, especially at Coffeyville and the Mississippi jucos. Signing and placing has been around for awhile. It seems like some of the Florida schools prefer to send their kids to jucos in Cali or Kansas.

[The Manhatter]

Again, if this is such common knowledge to KSU fans then why does this thread exist?  And no need to be defensive.  It's just a discussion.

because this thread was more about those who we still speculate may not make it..hogan, patterson, etc.    Haynes, Harris, Evans, and McDaniel were a given, period.  Walls and Roepke has been discussed as non-qualifiers.

On to this fabulous recruiting technique. Makes you wonder who's looking out for the kids' best interest.  Certainly isn't the JUCO or the school the kid initially committed to.  But something tells me the kid could chose whatever school he wants after his time at a JUCO is up.  Please give me examples of players where KSU has done this and then the kid did end up at KSU after JUCO.

It doesn't make us wonder who is looking out for the kids best interests because the BCS program who signs the kid is...all schools do it.  How can you say the JC or school who signed the kid isn't looking out for them?  LOL.  The BCS program wants that kid back in two years...if he doesn't sign anywhere then nobody cares except for the JC.  It's two fold really...the JC needs players, good ones, so the BCS program sends them there.  But the BCS program also places pressure on that JC kid to see that he stays in line and makes his grades...see how that works?  If there is not a BCS program signing and placing then there are not expectations or pressure coming from a BCS program.  And there are differences among the JC's...the BCS program and will place the kid where they see the best fit.  

It's a win-win situation...don't assume nobody is looking out for the kid when it sounds like you wouldn't know your arse from a hole in the ground when it comes to this subject.

And, no, nothing tells you the kid can pick wherever if you don't have a clue of what you are talking about.  Examples?  Corey White, Justin McKinney, Cedric Wilson, Gary Chandler...there are more.  It's really quite simple...JC's who do not protect kids will develop a rep and not get kids from those schools in the future...others will be hesitant sending those kids to that school to....simple stuff and easy to figure out.

Anyway, the past two years KSU has signed 63 players (according to Rivals).  31 last year, 32 this year.  No one else is even close.  I'm curious, and I assume you know, how many of those 63 are being placed in JUCO's with an obligation to KSU when their time is up?  And if the 63 is not accurate, please correct me.

quite typical of new coaches in new programs...he'll sign the full 25 in a class because he will have more transfers, etc.  And due to past class will probably have some that count back.  And in KSU's case Prince is trying to rekindle some relationships w/ Jayhawk JC's so he is intentionally signing and placing a number of kids.

[The Manhatter]

Nevin MacKenzie and Reynaldo Hill

nope.  Never signed those kids so they were free to go wherever.  We signed Reynaldo's little brother, Jerry, but not Reynaldo.  Nevin was committed but the offer withdrawn after he got into his situation.

If we SIGN and place a kid then we get that kid back after two years UNLESS...

1) we don't want the kid after the two years
2) the kid can't transfer credits or fails out of school
3) there is a coaching change  (this is why Ced Wilson and Chandler were allowed to be recruited..if Snyder still in Manhattan then their recruitment would have been closed to other schools)

[catzacker]

Someone needs to do a breakdown of hometown states.

Here's a further breakdown for each of Prince's classes by home state.  The breakdown consists of only players that are on the roster right now, so for instance, Devin Anderson is not included (although Hogan and Patterson are). 

2006 Class
   
TX   4   17%
MO   3   13%
OK   3   13%
KS   2   9%
FL   2   9%
CA   1   4%
NEB   1   4%
ILL   1   4%
CO   1   4%
OR   1   4%
MD   1   4%
GA   1   4%
ARK   1   4%
CNT   1   4%


2007 Class
   
KS   6   23%
TX   5   19%
MO   5   19%
CA   3   12%
NEB   1   4%
ILL   2   8%
VA   1   4%
Int'l   1   4%
FL   1   4%
CO   1   4%

[waks]

Hatter, whatever happened with Asante? Was he allowed to go to NU because of the coaching change? Oh yeah, and Walls' mother says he will be here in August..

[Sandman]

Just out of curiousty again, how many of the 63 that has committed to KSU in the past two years have been placed at a Juco?  I assume you'd know, Manhatter.

[The Manhatter]

Asante?  Not signed by KSU out of high school.


63 is actually 61 and it's spread over 3 classes.  Freeman and a few others may appear on the '06 commit list but they signed mid-year and can count BACK to the '05 class. 

How many are in JC's?  Don't know...we don't know the exact total of the '07 class yet.

If you're trying to suggest this practice is in someway "immoral" or "illegal" which it seems you may have attempted to do..lol, all schools do it.  Maybe not as many as KSU will do over the first few years under Prince but like I said there is a reason for that.

[waks]

Oh, I was under the impression that we initially signed Asante.

[Sandman]

Asante?  Not signed by KSU out of high school.


63 is actually 61 and it's spread over 3 classes.  Freeman and a few others may appear on the '06 commit list but they signed mid-year and can count BACK to the '05 class. 

How many are in JC's?  Don't know...we don't know the exact total of the '07 class yet.

If you're trying to suggest this practice is in someway "immoral" or "illegal" which it seems you may have attempted to do..lol, all schools do it.  Maybe not as many as KSU will do over the first few years under Prince but like I said there is a reason for that.

Certainly not illegal.  Ethically it seems a little fishy.  Saying all schools do it doesn't make it more ethical.  And Prince is hardly the only new coach in D-1, but he is the one with consecutive classes of 31 and 32.  Seems like the school can drop a kid if they want to after he's been placed at a Juco (if I understand it right).   Pretty sure that's not what a kid would be counting on when he signed a LOI to KSU (or any other university).  But I will digress, recruiting/college football is a shady business overall.