We are seriously going to be Baylor in a few years

[mjrod]

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.

 

[michigancat]

The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.

Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.

I'd say the top 10 is very successful.

[mjrod]

The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.

Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.

I'd say the top 10 is very successful.

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.

 

[michigancat]

The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.

Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.

I'd say the top 10 is very successful.

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.

 

"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!!!   "

[mjrod]

The top 10 had a combined .722 winning %.

Bill Snyder had a .666 career winning %.

I'd say the top 10 is very successful.

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.

 

"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!!!   "

Now we're back to BCS games.. incredible.   

[Andy]

   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.  

  
  

[michigancat]

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.

[mjrod]

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.

[michigancat]

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.

[mjrod]

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? 

[fatty fat fat]

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.

[mjrod]

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.

 

Wake me up when you make an argument that hasn't been destroyed yet.

[swish1]

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.

[chum1]

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.

[sonofdaxjones]

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.

[MrWhite]

[Kat Kid]

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).

[cireksu]

now I know where rusty got all his posts.

[cireksu]

we actually should have seen this coming in 01 with the signing of Marc Dunn and no other viable qb.

[Trim]

"So much for recruiting, right?" Prince said.

http://cjonline.com/stories/041908/cat_270067920.shtml

[chum1]

I think we're more like Iowa State than Baylor.

[fatty fat fat]

Some of you are waaayy too down on Prince.

The guy has gotten us wins. It's the recruiting that I hate.

[cireksu]

we're in better shape than when snyder left, christ that guy ran the program into the ground.

[Saulbadguy]

I think we are going to have another DoD in a few years. JMO.

[cireksu]

All the pieces for it seem to be falling into place.

[ew2x4]

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?

[Bookcat]

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.

[GoodForAnother]

Thank God for Bob Huggins.

 

[Kat Kid]

Thank God for Bob Huggins.

 

look at the dates tard.

[mjrod]

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.