Gill's Staff?

[JTKSU]

There's really no point arguing with this kid.  His only response to any logic is:  KSU's recruits/coaches suck.  His rabid anti-Snyder view point is completely blind to the success and experience this staff has had at KSU and elsewhere.

Have you even read his posts?  He's bringing up excellent points.

It's no surprise that you think that way.

[JTKSU]

The most impressive thing about Gill, IMO, was that he had his offensive and defensive coordinators selected before he was hired.  Long and Torbush both have head coaching experience and have been coordinators in the Big 12 and SEC.  Wyatt and Mitchell are very good recruiters, and have a history of bringing in top talent.  On paper, I'd say that Gill's assistants are superior to Mangino's.

You know why he was able to have them already selected?  Because one was unemployed and the other was one year removed from coaching at freaking Carson-Newman.  Sounds like the foundation of one hell of a staff to me... 

[sonofchadmay]

  When you look at this f’ing staff….how the hell am I undervaluing it?

Maybe the fact that they took a complete undisciplined ass clown of a team and won 4 conference games 

First, just to clarify, you're talking about Snyder’s staff taking over for Prince’s staff and then going 4-4 in conference in their first year not Prince’s staff taking over for Snyder’s staff and gong 4-4 in conference in it’s first year?
[/quote]

Yes.  This staff also reversed 52-21 (one of the low points in the abysmal history of KSU football) to 17-10. 

You guys get so caught up in Jeremey Crabtree's player ratings.  How do you explain Navy humiliating Mizzou?  Does Navy have great recruiters?  Has KSU ever in the history of Rivals rankings had a class ranked higher than A&M?  What do you think the average difference in Rivals rankings have been over the last 5 years between A&M and KSU?  I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 30.  How do you explain the beat down KSU put on them this year?  Why had Notre Dame sucked for the last decade?

Answer:  College football recruiting is a crap shoot.  Obviously there are the Mannings, and Adrian Peterson's that are can't miss but below that tier there are a bunch of kids lumped together that may or may not turn into good/great players at the college level.  It is much different than basketball recruiting because the basketball recruits play each other several times in AAU competition.  Recruiters and scouting services can see players play against each other.  In football the competition is often very lopsided.  There is rarely a time when the best players in the nation play each other.  NFL teams spend millions of dollars scouting college players for each years draft and you still see guys like Glen Dorsey, Ryan Leaf, Ryan Sims, etc, etc drafted high in the first round.  And they get to see guys play against each other in college, they still don't get it right over half of the time. 

[steve dave]

You guys get so caught up in Jeremey Crabtree's player ratings.  How do you explain Navy humiliating Mizzou?  Does Navy have great recruiters?  Has KSU ever in the history of Rivals rankings had a class ranked higher than A&M?  What do you think the average difference in Rivals rankings have been over the last 5 years between A&M and KSU?  I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 30.  How do you explain the beat down KSU put on them this year?  Why had Notre Dame sucked for the last decade?

Answer:  College football recruiting is a crap shoot.  Obviously there are the Mannings, and Adrian Peterson's that are can't miss but below that tier there are a bunch of kids lumped together that may or may not turn into good/great players at the college level.  It is much different than basketball recruiting because the basketball recruits play each other several times in AAU competition.  Recruiters and scouting services can see players play against each other.  In football the competition is often very lopsided.  There is rarely a time when the best players in the nation play each other.  NFL teams spend millions of dollars scouting college players for each years draft and you still see guys like Glen Dorsey, Ryan Leaf, Ryan Sims, etc, etc drafted high in the first round.  And they get to see guys play against each other in college, they still don't get it right over half of the time.  

This is bullsh1t.  Naming a handful of kids that didn't pan out or that exceeded expectations doesn't change the fact that the recruiting team rankings line up with exceptional correlation to standings at the end of the season.  Look at the two teams playing in the NC game.  They've recruited the living f^ck out of some five star kids the last four years.  And, it doesn't just line up at the top.  Look at the top 25 teams in rivals recruiting rankings the last 4 or 5 seasons.  There are always going to be outliers but there is not better guage of upcoming success than recruiting rankings.  

[catzacker]

 When you look at this f’ing staff….how the hell am I undervaluing it?

Maybe the fact that they took a complete undisciplined ass clown of a team and won 4 conference games  

First, just to clarify, you're talking about Snyder’s staff taking over for Prince’s staff and then going 4-4 in conference in their first year not Prince’s staff taking over for Snyder’s staff and gong 4-4 in conference in it’s first year?

Yes.  This staff also reversed 52-21 (one of the low points in the abysmal history of KSU football) to 17-10.  

shouldn't really judge this staff on its ability to beat a 5-7 kansas team at home.  But if you want to play that game, Mang reversed 64-0 and 42-6 into 31-28 (against basically the same staff snyder has now).  

*SD EDIT TO FIX THE QUOTE FUNCTION THAT WAS ANNOYING THE HELL OUT OF ME

[sonofchadmay]

You guys get so caught up in Jeremey Crabtree's player ratings.  How do you explain Navy humiliating Mizzou?  Does Navy have great recruiters?  Has KSU ever in the history of Rivals rankings had a class ranked higher than A&M?  What do you think the average difference in Rivals rankings have been over the last 5 years between A&M and KSU?  I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 30.  How do you explain the beat down KSU put on them this year?  Why had Notre Dame sucked for the last decade?

Answer:  College football recruiting is a crap shoot.  Obviously there are the Mannings, and Adrian Peterson's that are can't miss but below that tier there are a bunch of kids lumped together that may or may not turn into good/great players at the college level.  It is much different than basketball recruiting because the basketball recruits play each other several times in AAU competition.  Recruiters and scouting services can see players play against each other.  In football the competition is often very lopsided.  There is rarely a time when the best players in the nation play each other.  NFL teams spend millions of dollars scouting college players for each years draft and you still see guys like Glen Dorsey, Ryan Leaf, Ryan Sims, etc, etc drafted high in the first round.  And they get to see guys play against each other in college, they still don't get it right over half of the time. 

This is utter bullsh1t.  Naming a handful of kids that didn't pan our or that exceeded expectations doesn't change the fact that the recruiting team rankings line up with exceptional correlation to standings at the end of the season.  Look at the two teams playing in the NC game.  They've recruited the living f^ck out of some five star kids the last four years.  And, it doesn't just line up at the top.  Look at the top 25 teams in rivals recruiting rankings the last 4 or 5 seasons.  There are always going to be outliers but there is not better guage of upcoming success than recruiting rankings. 

1 Alabama (58) 13-0 1498
2 Texas (2) 13-0 1425
3 tcu 12-0 1376
4 Cincinnati 12-0 1302
5 Florida 12-1 1253
6 Boise State 13-0 1237
7 Oregon 10-2 1128
8 Ohio State 10-2 1080
9 Georgia Tech 11-2 952
10 Iowa 10-2 925

Have any of the above 4 bolded teams ever had a top 10 Rivals recruiting ranking?  Do any have top 25 averages over the last 5 years?  What was Navy's recruting rankings over the 5 years? 

[sonofchadmay]

 When you look at this f’ing staff….how the hell am I undervaluing it?

Maybe the fact that they took a complete undisciplined ass clown of a team and won 4 conference games  

First, just to clarify, you're talking about Snyder’s staff taking over for Prince’s staff and then going 4-4 in conference in their first year not Prince’s staff taking over for Snyder’s staff and gong 4-4 in conference in it’s first year?

Yes.  This staff also reversed 52-21 (one of the low points in the abysmal history of KSU football) to 17-10.  

shouldn't really judge this staff on its ability to beat a 5-7 kansas team at home.  But if you want to play that game, Mang reversed 64-0 and 42-6 into 31-28 (against basically the same staff snyder has now).  

*SD EDIT TO FIX THE QUOTE FUNCTION THAT WAS ANNOYING THE HELL OUT OF ME

I thought you were comparing Prince's staff to this staff not Mangino's.  If I recall correctly that Mangino staff (w/ Bill Young) went 12-1 one year and won an Orange Bowl.  That comparison would be a closer call definately.  Both good, but not great staffs. 

[michigancat]

You guys get so caught up in Jeremey Crabtree's player ratings.  How do you explain Navy humiliating Mizzou?  Does Navy have great recruiters?  Has KSU ever in the history of Rivals rankings had a class ranked higher than A&M?  What do you think the average difference in Rivals rankings have been over the last 5 years between A&M and KSU?  I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 30.  How do you explain the beat down KSU put on them this year?  Why had Notre Dame sucked for the last decade?

Answer:  College football recruiting is a crap shoot.  Obviously there are the Mannings, and Adrian Peterson's that are can't miss but below that tier there are a bunch of kids lumped together that may or may not turn into good/great players at the college level.  It is much different than basketball recruiting because the basketball recruits play each other several times in AAU competition.  Recruiters and scouting services can see players play against each other.  In football the competition is often very lopsided.  There is rarely a time when the best players in the nation play each other.  NFL teams spend millions of dollars scouting college players for each years draft and you still see guys like Glen Dorsey, Ryan Leaf, Ryan Sims, etc, etc drafted high in the first round.  And they get to see guys play against each other in college, they still don't get it right over half of the time. 

This is utter bullsh1t.  Naming a handful of kids that didn't pan our or that exceeded expectations doesn't change the fact that the recruiting team rankings line up with exceptional correlation to standings at the end of the season.  Look at the two teams playing in the NC game.  They've recruited the living f^ck out of some five star kids the last four years.  And, it doesn't just line up at the top.  Look at the top 25 teams in rivals recruiting rankings the last 4 or 5 seasons.  There are always going to be outliers but there is not better guage of upcoming success than recruiting rankings. 

1 Alabama (58) 13-0 1498
2 Texas (2) 13-0 1425
3 tcu 12-0 1376
4 Cincinnati 12-0 1302
5 Florida 12-1 1253
6 Boise State 13-0 1237
7 Oregon 10-2 1128
8 Ohio State 10-2 1080
9 Georgia Tech 11-2 952
10 Iowa 10-2 925

Have any of the above 4 bolded teams ever had a top 10 Rivals recruiting ranking?  Do any have top 25 averages over the last 5 years?  What was Navy's recruting rankings over the 5 years? 

Just so you know, those 4 teams have a combined (2) AP top 10 finishes in the last 20 years, so that kind of goes along with what steve dave is saying - recruiting rankings are a pretty good indicator of success.

[sonofchadmay]

You guys get so caught up in Jeremey Crabtree's player ratings.  How do you explain Navy humiliating Mizzou?  Does Navy have great recruiters?  Has KSU ever in the history of Rivals rankings had a class ranked higher than A&M?  What do you think the average difference in Rivals rankings have been over the last 5 years between A&M and KSU?  I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 30.  How do you explain the beat down KSU put on them this year?  Why had Notre Dame sucked for the last decade?

Answer:  College football recruiting is a crap shoot.  Obviously there are the Mannings, and Adrian Peterson's that are can't miss but below that tier there are a bunch of kids lumped together that may or may not turn into good/great players at the college level.  It is much different than basketball recruiting because the basketball recruits play each other several times in AAU competition.  Recruiters and scouting services can see players play against each other.  In football the competition is often very lopsided.  There is rarely a time when the best players in the nation play each other.  NFL teams spend millions of dollars scouting college players for each years draft and you still see guys like Glen Dorsey, Ryan Leaf, Ryan Sims, etc, etc drafted high in the first round.  And they get to see guys play against each other in college, they still don't get it right over half of the time. 

This is utter bullsh1t.  Naming a handful of kids that didn't pan our or that exceeded expectations doesn't change the fact that the recruiting team rankings line up with exceptional correlation to standings at the end of the season.  Look at the two teams playing in the NC game.  They've recruited the living f^ck out of some five star kids the last four years.  And, it doesn't just line up at the top.  Look at the top 25 teams in rivals recruiting rankings the last 4 or 5 seasons.  There are always going to be outliers but there is not better guage of upcoming success than recruiting rankings. 

1 Alabama (58) 13-0 1498
2 Texas (2) 13-0 1425
3 tcu 12-0 1376
4 Cincinnati 12-0 1302
5 Florida 12-1 1253
6 Boise State 13-0 1237
7 Oregon 10-2 1128
8 Ohio State 10-2 1080
9 Georgia Tech 11-2 952
10 Iowa 10-2 925

Have any of the above 4 bolded teams ever had a top 10 Rivals recruiting ranking?  Do any have top 25 averages over the last 5 years?  What was Navy's recruting rankings over the 5 years? 

Just so you know, those 4 teams have a combined (2) AP top 10 finishes in the last 20 years, so that kind of goes along with what steve dave is saying - recruiting rankings are a pretty good indicator of success.

It is pretty accurate to say that Texas, Alabama, Florida, USC, Oklahoma, and Ohio State will be good every year and have high recruiting ratings every year.  That is driven by the fact that those teams get the can't misses I mentioned above (Manning, Peterson, Bush, etc).  All of the other teams, for the most part, are left with the players that are much more difficult to evaluate making the recruiting rankings below the top tier near meaningless. 

[catzacker]

it isn't like the theory that "rankings don't matter" makes a case for snyder's current staff.  if anything it means that (a) this staff can't recruit - based on the ratings and (b) if (a) doesn't matter and it's pure evluation then they still suck because the core of this staff has basically been around since '02 -which was the start or just after the start in the decline in bringing in quality players regardless of their rankings and led to 2 straigt losing seasons coming off 5 of 6 11 win seasons and a conference championship.

[steve dave]

You guys get so caught up in Jeremey Crabtree's player ratings.  How do you explain Navy humiliating Mizzou?  Does Navy have great recruiters?  Has KSU ever in the history of Rivals rankings had a class ranked higher than A&M?  What do you think the average difference in Rivals rankings have been over the last 5 years between A&M and KSU?  I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 30.  How do you explain the beat down KSU put on them this year?  Why had Notre Dame sucked for the last decade?

Answer:  College football recruiting is a crap shoot.  Obviously there are the Mannings, and Adrian Peterson's that are can't miss but below that tier there are a bunch of kids lumped together that may or may not turn into good/great players at the college level.  It is much different than basketball recruiting because the basketball recruits play each other several times in AAU competition.  Recruiters and scouting services can see players play against each other.  In football the competition is often very lopsided.  There is rarely a time when the best players in the nation play each other.  NFL teams spend millions of dollars scouting college players for each years draft and you still see guys like Glen Dorsey, Ryan Leaf, Ryan Sims, etc, etc drafted high in the first round.  And they get to see guys play against each other in college, they still don't get it right over half of the time. 

This is utter bullsh1t.  Naming a handful of kids that didn't pan our or that exceeded expectations doesn't change the fact that the recruiting team rankings line up with exceptional correlation to standings at the end of the season.  Look at the two teams playing in the NC game.  They've recruited the living f^ck out of some five star kids the last four years.  And, it doesn't just line up at the top.  Look at the top 25 teams in rivals recruiting rankings the last 4 or 5 seasons.  There are always going to be outliers but there is not better guage of upcoming success than recruiting rankings. 

1 Alabama (58) 13-0 1498
2 Texas (2) 13-0 1425
3 tcu 12-0 1376
4 Cincinnati 12-0 1302
5 Florida 12-1 1253
6 Boise State 13-0 1237
7 Oregon 10-2 1128
8 Ohio State 10-2 1080
9 Georgia Tech 11-2 952
10 Iowa 10-2 925

Have any of the above 4 bolded teams ever had a top 10 Rivals recruiting ranking?  Do any have top 25 averages over the last 5 years?  What was Navy's recruting rankings over the 5 years? 

Just so you know, those 4 teams have a combined (2) AP top 10 finishes in the last 20 years, so that kind of goes along with what steve dave is saying - recruiting rankings are a pretty good indicator of success.

It is pretty accurate to say that Texas, Alabama, Florida, USC, Oklahoma, and Ohio State will be good every year and have high recruiting ratings every year.  That is driven by the fact that those teams get the can't misses I mentioned above (Manning, Peterson, Bush, etc).  All of the other teams, for the most part, are left with the players that are much more difficult to evaluate making the recruiting rankings below the top tier near meaningless. 

WTF.  Look at the Rivals Top 25 recruiting rankings from the last 8 years.  It's a who's who of teams that consistently go to bowls and sometimes go to great bowls (oviosuly the top teams in the recruiting rankings more often go to the great bowls).  Now look at the 3rd and 4th page of the rankings and tell me what you see.  It's a bunch of Sun Belt teams and the sh1ttiest BCS conference teams.  Recruiting rankings are pretty much the only thing out there that can consistently predict the success of a program.   Obviously there are outliers (usually from sh1tty conferences because someone has to be the best WAC team). 

[opcat]

Disaster hire. 

[Dick Knewheizel]

You guys get so caught up in Jeremey Crabtree's player ratings.  How do you explain Navy humiliating Mizzou?  Does Navy have great recruiters?  Has KSU ever in the history of Rivals rankings had a class ranked higher than A&M?  What do you think the average difference in Rivals rankings have been over the last 5 years between A&M and KSU?  I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 30.  How do you explain the beat down KSU put on them this year?  Why had Notre Dame sucked for the last decade?

Answer:  College football recruiting is a crap shoot.  Obviously there are the Mannings, and Adrian Peterson's that are can't miss but below that tier there are a bunch of kids lumped together that may or may not turn into good/great players at the college level.  It is much different than basketball recruiting because the basketball recruits play each other several times in AAU competition.  Recruiters and scouting services can see players play against each other.  In football the competition is often very lopsided.  There is rarely a time when the best players in the nation play each other.  NFL teams spend millions of dollars scouting college players for each years draft and you still see guys like Glen Dorsey, Ryan Leaf, Ryan Sims, etc, etc drafted high in the first round.  And they get to see guys play against each other in college, they still don't get it right over half of the time.  

This is bullsh1t.  Naming a handful of kids that didn't pan out or that exceeded expectations doesn't change the fact that the recruiting team rankings line up with exceptional correlation to standings at the end of the season.  Look at the two teams playing in the NC game.  They've recruited the living f^ck out of some five star kids the last four years.  And, it doesn't just line up at the top.  Look at the top 25 teams in rivals recruiting rankings the last 4 or 5 seasons.  There are always going to be outliers but there is not better guage of upcoming success than recruiting rankings.  

Recruiting rankings are more highly correlated to Rivals memberships than the success of teams.  Coaching matters in CFB more than anything.  Bama has Saban, UT has Brown, UF has Meyer, and OU has Stoops.  ND, UGA, FSU, the U, and Tenn are consistently in the top 10 in recruiting (per Rivals) and haven't done dick in a long time.

Snyd's has put a f*ck load of dudes in the NFL and that's the only way to evaluate the talent of the players recruited.  Effort guys don't get drafted b/c effort doesn't make you run faster, turn quicker, or jump higher.  Guys that do well at the combine get drafted and last I checked that's not a try hard competition. 

The fact we're ranked low per rivals in recruiting this year has everything to do with the low number of the players not the quality of players.  It also ignores the highly recruited transfers and grey shirts.

Lastly, to the dumbf*ck complaining about a scholly given to a grey shirt rather than some JuCo LB, my god you're dense.  That has to be the single most pathetic asinine reason to complain I've ever heard of.  You are a moron

[catzacker]

who needs 4* LB's?  KSU doesn't.  They've got ginger power.

[ksubaby21!]

thanks you dk! atleast someone else has some sense!

[chum1]

If I was Gill, I would start a cooking show on TV.  It would be called "Gill's Grill."  I would invite all of the KC BBQ masters on to share a bit of their craft.  The set would have a big sign that says "Gill's Grill."  I'd be all like, "Hey, I'm Gill.  This is my grill.  Don't get up in my grill.   But please cook on my grill."  So, do stars matter or what?

[fatty fat fat]

well, i've seen this thread before.

has n e 1 seen zacker  on the hoops forum?

[sonofchadmay]

For all of the Jeremy Crabtree worshippers:

Almost 2/3rds of the latest 2009 AP Poll (pre bowl games) had average Rivals Rankings that fell outside of the Top 25.  Most by a ridiculously wide margin.

Over half of the 2008/2009 Final AP Top 25 had average Rivals Rankings that fell outside of the Top 25 using 2006-2008 Rivals Rankings.

Those that had high AP to Rivals correlations are pretty obvious:  Florida, Alabama, Texas, Ohio St. (OU and USC for 2008).  All other teams....not so much.  

But please don't let this get in the way of the Crabtree/Super Recruiter Assistant Coach talk.  

AP Rank         Rivals Final Rank                  
2008*   2009**   Team   2006   2007   2008   2009   2 Yr Avg   4 Yr Avg   06-08
6   1   Alabama   8   15   6   5    6     9     10
4   2   Texas   9   5   10   3    7     7     8
7   3   tcu   49   55   73   31    52     52     59
17   4   Cinn   114   76   74   66    70     83     88
1   5   Florida   2   2   4   1    3     2     3
11   6   Boise    74   78   72   62    67     72     75
10   7   Oregon   43   17   15   42    29     29     25
9   8   Ohio St.   10   4   3   7    5     6     6
22   9   G-Tech   40   14   49   43    46     37     34
8   10   Penn St.   38   33   53   70    62     49     41
20   11   Iowa   7   21   32   63    48     31     20
15   12   Va Tech   27   43   24   26    25     30     31
   13   LSU   5   3   9   6    8     6     6
   14   Miami   15   19   14   11    13     15     16
25   15   BYU   85   59   55   46    51     61     66
18   16   Ore. St.   47   56   44   60    52     52     49
   17   Pitt   23   26   20   41    31     28     23
23   18   W. Va.   45   32   56   27    42     40     44
   19   Stanford   56   50   47   19    33     43     51
   20   Nebraska   18   13   34   21    28     22     22
16   21   Okie St.   25   25   28   37    33     29     26
   22   Arizona   17   44   35   38    37     34     32
2   23   Utah   57   65   43   48    46     53     55
   24   Wisc.   39   24   40   31    36     34     34
   25   C. Mich   99   113   106   87    97     101     106

13   18   Teams in Final AP Top 25 with Final Rivals Average Ranking Below 25                     
                           
52%   72%   % of Teams in Final AP Top 25 with Final Rivals Average Rankings                      
      Below 25                     
                           
   *2 of the 8 teams not in Final 2008/2009 AP rankings had a Rivals below the Top 25                         
   **Pre Bowl AP Rankings                        


                        
                        
                  
                  





      

[fatty fat fat]

what is your point?

snyder hasn't been to a bowl game in his last three seasons. he hasn't been recruiting well.

[cireksu]

yeah, DFL 3 years running.

[sonofchadmay]

what is your point?

snyder hasn't been to a bowl game in his last three seasons. he hasn't been recruiting well.

2 points:

1)  It is silly to bag on the job the KSU staff did this year.  The Mizzou game was a debacle but other than that the team exceeded expectations.

2)  Rivals rankings are crap and are not any kind of indicator on how a team will perform during the season.  It is not hard to rate recruits that commit to Florida, Alabama, Texas very high and then talk about what a great indicator the recruiting rankings are. 

If KSU doesn't win 7+ games in 2010 I will join the bag on Old Balls bandwagon.  Until then I see 2004 and 2005 being the outliers instead of the 11 straight bowl seasons. 

[michigancat]

For all of the Jeremy Crabtree worshippers:

Almost 2/3rds of the latest 2009 AP Poll (pre bowl games) had average Rivals Rankings that fell outside of the Top 25.  Most by a ridiculously wide margin.

Over half of the 2008/2009 Final AP Top 25 had average Rivals Rankings that fell outside of the Top 25 using 2006-2008 Rivals Rankings.

Those that had high AP to Rivals correlations are pretty obvious:  Florida, Alabama, Texas, Ohio St. (OU and USC for 2008).  All other teams....not so much. 

But please don't let this get in the way of the Crabtree/Super Recruiter Assistant Coach talk. 

AP Rank         Rivals Final Rank                  
2008*   2009**   2006   2007   2008   2009   2 Yr    4      06-08
6   1   Alabama   8   15   6   5    6     9     10
4   2   Texas           9   5   10   3    7     7     8
7   3   tcu           49   55   73   31    52     52     59
17   4   Cinn           114   76   74   66    70     83     88
1   5   Florida   2   2   4   1    3     2     3
11   6   Boise            74   78   72   62    67     72     75
10   7   Oregon   43   17   15   42    29     29     25
9   8   Ohio St.   10   4   3   7    5     6     6
22   9   G-Tech   40   14   49   43    46     37     34
8   10   Penn St.   38   33   53   70    62     49     41
20   11   Iowa           7   21   32   63    48     31     20
15   12   Va Tech   27   43   24   26    25     30     31
   13   LSU           5   3   9   6    8     6     6
   14   Miami           15   19   14   11    13     15     16
25   15   BYU           85   59   55   46    51     61     66
18   16   Ore. St.   47   56   44   60    52     52     49
   17   Pitt           23   26   20   41    31     28     23
23   18   W. Va.   45   32   56   27    42     40     44
   19   Stanford   56   50   47   19    33     43     51
   20   Nebraska   18   13   34   21    28     22     22
16   21   Okie St.   25   25   28   37    33     29     26
   22   Arizona   17   44   35   38    37     34     32
2   23   Utah           57   65   43   48    46     53     55
   24   Wisc.           39   24   40   31    36     34     34
   25   C. Mich   99   113   106   87    97     101     106

13   18   Teams in Final AP Top 25 with Final Rivals Average Ranking Below 25                     
                           
52%   72%   % of Teams in Final AP Top 25 with Final Rivals Average Rankings                      
      Below 25                     
                           
   *2 of the 8 teams not in Final 2008/2009 AP rankings had a Rivals below the Top 25                         
   **Pre Bowl AP Rankings

A couple problems here:

1)  The top 25 recruiters from 2006-2008 won't necessarily have average rankings of 25 or better.  To truly get an accurate list, you would have to take everyone's averages, and then rank the top 25 averages.  Notice how no one over that time has an average of 1 - the best recruiting team will have an average of 3 or so (I'm guessing it's Florida).  The same principle holds all the way to #25.

2)  Even then, with 120 division 1 schools, 19 of the 50 top 25 teams over 2 years had an average of 25 or better.  If you make it into that group, you have a 38% chance of finishing in the top 25 (assuming the top 25 all were ranked 25 or better, which is not the case).  There were 190 teams not ranked 25 or better, and 31 made it into the top 25 over 2 years.  That's a 16% chance of a non-top 25 recruiting team making it into the top 25.

Recruiting ranking of 25 or better:  38% chance of making it into the top 25
Recruiting ranking of 26 or worse:  16% chance of making it into the top 25

Yeah, looks like stars don't matter at all.

[steve dave]

1)  It is silly to bag on the job the KSU staff did this year.  The Mizzou game was a debacle but other than that the team exceeded expectations.

In no way did losing to LaLa exceed my expectations.  Inexcusable.

2)  Rivals rankings are crap and are not any kind of indicator on how a team will perform during the season.  It is not hard to rate recruits that commit to Florida, Alabama, Texas very high and then talk about what a great indicator the recruiting rankings are.  

It's been shown over and over again.

As recruiting takes over the landscape to an even greater extent than usual over the next week or so, we should also see the annual barrage of "snake oil" articles scoffing at the rankings that draw larger and larger audiences every year. In fact, they're already coming this year.
I was in this camp for a long time. One of the running ideas I had at my old site, actually, was to review old recruiting rankings and ruthlessly mock them for being so woefully off-base. Except that every time I tried, I ran into a wall: There were always as many (and usually more) players who "made it" among the top prospects as there were busts. Unlike some people, I find arguing "Recruiting rankings are stupid because Rhett Bomar" more than a little disingenuous; ditto "Recruiting rankings are stupid because Utah."
You can do anything you want anecdotally, especially with a subject as chicken-and-egg as recruiting. But I've become a believer over the last couple years because of the numbers -- that is, all of the numbers. Rivals, for example, uses a formula (no, I don't know the formula) to assign every team in the country a total score for its overall class every year, usually ranging from about 200 on the low end to just shy of 3,000 for the USCs and Floridas of the world. Here is each BCS conference team's total score for the last five years (the sum of the scores from 2004-2008). And here are those same five-year sums distributed according to overall winning percentage over the same period:


For all the hits and misses, the big trend is clear, and speaks for itself: The average winning percentage steadily increases in lockstep with increased recruiting points. The 15 or 20 teams that separate themselves on an annual basis have no chance of a losing record over any sustained period of time; the bottom fifth or so, obviously, is more likely to come out below .500.
Remember, though, that that graph is of overall records, including mid-major and I-AA patticakes that even the worst BCS conference teams typically out-recruit. Without that kind of context, the big picture can be a bit of a mess because of wildly varying schedules and other inconsistencies that wreck head-to-head comparisons; SEC teams, for example, are clustered at the top of the rankings every year, and Big East teams clustered at the bottom where the BCS conferences are concerned, and since these teams mainly play within their conferences, overachievers and underachievers are inevitable (somebody has to win the Big East). To get a more detailed of look, I took the same five-year point totals from Rivals and applied them to all 332 games last year between teams from BCS conferences, broken down here according to how far apart the two teams in each game were in the rankings:


Bottom line: Based on the recruiting rankings of the last five years, the "more talented" team according to the gurus won almost two-thirds of the time in 2008, by a little more than a touchdown per game. Just as importantly, the difference became more obvious as the gap widened, exactly as you'd expect if the rankings are worth anything at all.
There was virtually no difference between teams that recruited within 2,000 points of one another over the preceding five years (or less than 400 points apart per year); as you might expect, the rankings weren't very useful for parsing talent gaps that small with so many other factors in play, and teams that found themselves bunched closely together in the rankings were generally in the same situation when they went head-to-head on the field.
At that point, though, the class differences become too wide bridge, and the higher-ranked teams begin to dominate. Teams that brought in an annual 400-1,000-point advantage over their opponent on any given weekend won two-thirds of the time last year, by 10 points per game; teams that "out-recruited" the opposing sideline by at least 5,000 points from 2004-08 won a whopping three-fourths of the time, by more than two touchdowns. In other words, for every Oregon State over USC and Ole Miss over Florida, there were three cases of Oklahoma over Baylor, LSU over Mississippi State and Ohio State over Northwestern. But you knew that.
So the rankings are definitely not precise enough to predict the national championship (or, unless you're talking about USC, even most conference championships). But they are especially good at grouping programs into classes that tend to hold up over time. They establish the ceiling and floor of a program's potential: If your team isn't a top-10 recruiter over at least a three or four-year period, it's not going to be carrying off any crystal footballs, either.
A generalization, yes, but as far as generalizations go, it's solid enough to set an informed baseline for expectations until there are specific reasons to think otherwise. If you ask any prediction to do more than that, you probably lead a very disappointed life.

[JTKSU]

who needs 4* LB's?  KSU doesn't.  They've got ginger power.

Probably not the best point to make, 4* LBs have not been kind to us in quite some time.  Ulla, Smoke, Simmons, etc.     But I would still much rather have 4*s on the roster than 3s and 2s.  Totally OT, but I noticed (while trying to remember which of our 4* lbs have totally sucked ass) that Diles was a 0* LB.  Wow, a lot of people really dropped the ball on his evals. 

[Legore]

For all of the Jeremy Crabtree worshippers:

Almost 2/3rds of the latest 2009 AP Poll (pre bowl games) had average Rivals Rankings that fell outside of the Top 25.  Most by a ridiculously wide margin.

Over half of the 2008/2009 Final AP Top 25 had average Rivals Rankings that fell outside of the Top 25 using 2006-2008 Rivals Rankings.

Those that had high AP to Rivals correlations are pretty obvious:  Florida, Alabama, Texas, Ohio St. (OU and USC for 2008).  All other teams....not so much. 

But please don't let this get in the way of the Crabtree/Super Recruiter Assistant Coach talk. 

AP Rank         Rivals Final Rank                  
2008*   2009**   2006   2007   2008   2009   2 Yr    4      06-08
6   1   Alabama   8   15   6   5    6     9     10
4   2   Texas           9   5   10   3    7     7     8
7   3   tcu           49   55   73   31    52     52     59
17   4   Cinn           114   76   74   66    70     83     88
1   5   Florida   2   2   4   1    3     2     3
11   6   Boise            74   78   72   62    67     72     75
10   7   Oregon   43   17   15   42    29     29     25
9   8   Ohio St.   10   4   3   7    5     6     6
22   9   G-Tech   40   14   49   43    46     37     34
8   10   Penn St.   38   33   53   70    62     49     41
20   11   Iowa           7   21   32   63    48     31     20
15   12   Va Tech   27   43   24   26    25     30     31
   13   LSU           5   3   9   6    8     6     6
   14   Miami           15   19   14   11    13     15     16
25   15   BYU           85   59   55   46    51     61     66
18   16   Ore. St.   47   56   44   60    52     52     49
   17   Pitt           23   26   20   41    31     28     23
23   18   W. Va.   45   32   56   27    42     40     44
   19   Stanford   56   50   47   19    33     43     51
   20   Nebraska   18   13   34   21    28     22     22
16   21   Okie St.   25   25   28   37    33     29     26
   22   Arizona   17   44   35   38    37     34     32
2   23   Utah           57   65   43   48    46     53     55
   24   Wisc.           39   24   40   31    36     34     34
   25   C. Mich   99   113   106   87    97     101     106

13   18   Teams in Final AP Top 25 with Final Rivals Average Ranking Below 25                     
                           
52%   72%   % of Teams in Final AP Top 25 with Final Rivals Average Rankings                      
      Below 25                     
                           
   *2 of the 8 teams not in Final 2008/2009 AP rankings had a Rivals below the Top 25                         
   **Pre Bowl AP Rankings

A couple problems here:

1)  The top 25 recruiters from 2006-2008 won't necessarily have average rankings of 25 or better.  To truly get an accurate list, you would have to take everyone's averages, and then rank the top 25 averages.  Notice how no one over that time has an average of 1 - the best recruiting team will have an average of 3 or so (I'm guessing it's Florida).  The same principle holds all the way to #25.

2)  Even then, with 120 division 1 schools, 19 of the 50 top 25 teams over 2 years had an average of 25 or better.  If you make it into that group, you have a 38% chance of finishing in the top 25 (assuming the top 25 all were ranked 25 or better, which is not the case).  There were 190 teams not ranked 25 or better, and 31 made it into the top 25 over 2 years.  That's a 16% chance of a non-top 25 recruiting team making it into the top 25.

Recruiting ranking of 25 or better:  38% chance of making it into the top 25
Recruiting ranking of 26 or worse:  16% chance of making it into the top 25

Yeah, looks like stars don't matter at all.

The problem with your analysis is all the non BCS schools that are d-1.  It is rare for them to have a top 25 class and it is rare for them to be ranked in the top 25.  So they have a huge impact on that 16% number you throw out.  I'm not a stats guy and I'm not going to take the time to calculate it but I would even argue they account for almost all of that difference. 


Recruiting rankings do matter to a point but it is also pretty obvious they are not the be all and end all to success.   Some teams and coaches have shown they can have success without top rated classes.  In the past Snyder has proven to be one of those coaches time will tell if he can do it again or not.

The argument about his last two season that some are bringing up actually speaks against the validity of recruiting rankings because he had a couple his highest rated recruiting classes prior to that downfall. 

[michigancat]

The problem with your analysis is all the non BCS schools that are d-1.  It is rare for them to have a top 25 class and it is rare for them to be ranked in the top 25.  So they have a huge impact on that 16% number you throw out.  I'm not a stats guy and I'm not going to take the time to calculate it but I would even argue they account for almost all of that difference. 

OK, take out the non-BCS:

There were 80 non-top 25 classes in the BCS over 2 years, and 22 of those teams made the top 25.  Still just 27%.  If you actually rank the top 25 recruiters over that year like I mentioned, the gap will definitely widen.

[catzacker]

The argument about his last two season that some are bringing up actually speaks against the validity of recruiting rankings because he had a couple his highest rated recruiting classes prior to that downfall.  

Some of those players who made those classes so highly rated never ended up making it to campus.  I believe rankings are an indicator of talent on the roster, but I judge a staff’s ability based on the final product (even snyds says “won’t know how good the class is until 4 years later”, and I agree with this).  The final two years were a culmination of life after the ’98 exodus.  We went from having Ben Leber type players as back ups to having Matt Butler be replaced by Ted freaking Sims.  

[michigancat]

The argument about his last two season that some are bringing up actually speaks against the validity of recruiting rankings because he had a couple his highest rated recruiting classes prior to that downfall. 

Some of those players who made those classes so highly rated never ended up making it to campus.  I believe rankings are an indicator of talent on the roster, but I judge a staff’s ability based on the final product (even snyds says “won’t know how good the class is until 4 years later”, and I agree with this).  The final two years were a culmination of life after the ’98 exodus.  We went from having Ben Leber type players as back ups to having Matt Butler be replaced by Ted freaking Sims. 

Overrating juco's also skews the numbers.  I'm pretty sure Matt Boss was the only 4 star HS player from that era that actually made it to campus.

[JTKSU]

The argument about his last two season that some are bringing up actually speaks against the validity of recruiting rankings because he had a couple his highest rated recruiting classes prior to that downfall.  

Some of those players who made those classes so highly rated never ended up making it to campus.  I believe rankings are an indicator of talent on the roster, but I judge a staff’s ability based on the final product (even snyds says “won’t know how good the class is until 4 years later”, and I agree with this).  The final two years were a culmination of life after the ’98 exodus.  We went from having Ben Leber type players as back ups to having Matt Butler be replaced by Ted freaking Sims.  

Sims was pretty decent, especially when flanked by Hickman and Buhl.   Loved his CCG performance. 

[BMWJhawk]

The most impressive thing about Gill, IMO, was that he had his offensive and defensive coordinators selected before he was hired.  Long and Torbush both have head coaching experience and have been coordinators in the Big 12 and SEC.  Wyatt and Mitchell are very good recruiters, and have a history of bringing in top talent.  On paper, I'd say that Gill's assistants are superior to Mangino's.

You know why he was able to have them already selected?  Because one was unemployed and the other was one year removed from coaching at freaking Carson-Newman.  Sounds like the foundation of one hell of a staff to me... 

Bill Cowher is unemployed... doesn't mean the guy can't coach.  Long was the offensive coordinator for Oklahoma and coached in two national title games... I'd say the guy qualifies as a decent hire for Kansas.  Torbush was Mack Brown's defensive coordinator at UNC and was also head coach at UNC after Brown left.  The guy got burned out of coaching, just like what Urban Meyer is going through right now.  He resurfaced this year at Mississippi State, who plays in the SEC last time I checked.