goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: steve dave on April 26, 2013, 09:39:02 AM
-
17 of the first round draft was 4/5 star players (Rivals rankings). Over half. I would like to know what percentage of college football scholarship players are 4/5 star players. I would guess about 5%?
-
Of the 17, how many will have productive careers?? Maybe 10?
-
Of the 17, how many will have productive careers?? Maybe 10?
Irrelevant. SD is countering the tuck talking point about stars not mattering in college FB. They obviously matter because the cream that rises to the top of college FB gets drafted. Of those players that make up the cream that is the first round, a large percentage of them were rated with a lot of stars as HS kids going into college.
No one cares how they do in the NFL, just that they obvsly were great college players for the NFL to want them.
-
Of the 17, how many will have productive careers?? Maybe 10?
Irrelevant. SD is countering the tuck talking point about stars not mattering in college FB. They obviously matter because the cream that rises to the top of college FB gets drafted. Of those players that make up the cream that is the first round, a large percentage of them were rated with a lot of stars as HS kids going into college.
No one cares how they do in the NFL, just that they obvsly were great college players for the NFL to want them.
:thumbs: I thought he was correlating stars to NFL success
-
79cat of gpc fame says eff you, steve dave.
-
79cat of gpc fame says eff you, steve dave.
I will fight 79cat for saying that to sd
-
79cat of gpc fame says eff you, steve dave.
I will fight 79cat for saying that to sd
whip his ass scott
-
Of the 17, how many will have productive careers?? Maybe 10?
Irrelevant. SD is countering the tuck talking point about stars not mattering in college FB. They obviously matter because the cream that rises to the top of college FB gets drafted. Of those players that make up the cream that is the first round, a large percentage of them were rated with a lot of stars as HS kids going into college.
No one cares how they do in the NFL, just that they obvsly were great college players for the NFL to want them.
I agree that stars absolutely matter, but sometimes the cream that rises to the top of college football doesn't get drafted. Just look at Collin Klein.
-
79cat of gpc fame says eff you, steve dave.
I will fight 79cat for saying that to sd
whip his ass scott
I will! Spaces is going to video tape it and put it on YouTube!
-
DID MARCUS WATTS HAVE STARS?!
-
Boy do I feel dumb for thinking we were going to have a pretty good o line next year now I find out it is going to suck! 3 star Whitehair,3 star Taylor,2 star Finney, 2 star Lucas,2 star Stiverson what a bunch of losers! But what do I know I thought 2 star Meshack Williams was pretty good. I don't EVEN want to think how bad 2 star Ty Zimmerman is going to be YUK! I hope we can meet with the players tomorrow so I can tell 2 star Glen Gronkowski what the smart boys on GPC think of him!
-
Eric Fisher, 2* recruit. :gocho:
-
So what you are saying ARM58 is you get 5 star Peni Holakeituai and I get stuck with 3 star Ryan Lilja? And you get 4 star Jessie Keaulana-Kamakea and all I get is 3 star Jeromey Clary? And I bet you get 5 star Daniel Davis and all I get is 3 star Yamon Figurs?
Arm are you gonna stick me with Jordy Nelson, Ty Zimmerman, Darren Sproles and Tyson Hartman?
what now steve dave?
-
Of the 17, how many will have productive careers?? Maybe 10?
Irrelevant. SD is countering the tuck talking point about stars not mattering in college FB. They obviously matter because the cream that rises to the top of college FB gets drafted. Of those players that make up the cream that is the first round, a large percentage of them were rated with a lot of stars as HS kids going into college.
No one cares how they do in the NFL, just that they obvsly were great college players for the NFL to want them.
I agree that stars absolutely matter, but sometimes the cream that rises to the top of college football doesn't get drafted. Just look at Collin Klein.
For every Colin Klein, you have twenty or twenty five years of 1st round drafts that include 1/3rd of 5star guys.
-
I don't get how teams like North Carolina and Missouri always have top 15 picks every year but still suck balls.
-
I don't get how teams like North Carolina and Missouri always have top 15 picks every year but still suck balls.
prolly the same reason we had stud first rounder Josh Freeman and stud white guy Jordy Nelson but still sucked balls. you can't surround studs with puds. at least surround them with mediums.
-
Imagine how awesome we'd be if we surrounded diamond in the rough 2 and 3 star types with elite 5 star athletes.
-
Will we have enough mediums to sustain #life?
-
Will we have enough mediums to sustain #life?
yeah, our offense is full of stud mediums. it's the defense that's lacking mediums imo.
-
Stars are stupid, stupid way of evaluating a recruit. For instance Lucas and Tate were both 2 Stars but if you evaluated them out of high school you would of know Lucas had a chance to be really good and Tate didn't. The fact that players get the same star rating for totally different reason make the star system stupid.
-
Stars are stupid, stupid way of evaluating a recruit. For instance Lucas and Tate were both 2 Stars but if you evaluated them out of high school you would of know Lucas had a chance to be really good and Tate didn't. The fact that players get the same star rating for totally different reason make the star system stupid.
The NFL seems to confirm the process yearly. :dunno:
-
I don't even want 5 star players, just give us some good 4 stars :frown:
-
Hopefully NBAF comes up with some thing that can make a 3 star a 4 star then.
-
Stars are stupid, stupid way of evaluating a recruit. For instance Lucas and Tate were both 2 Stars but if you evaluated them out of high school you would of know Lucas had a chance to be really good and Tate didn't. The fact that players get the same star rating for totally different reason make the star system stupid.
The NFL seems to confirm the process yearly. :dunno:
I believe they can do better. But the point is not all 2 stars are as football challenge as others and the system needs to make distinctions. For instance you should be able to go to a recruits profile and understand that Lamarck Brown and Jordy Nelson don't have 2 stars of separation of talent.
-
17 of the first round draft was 4/5 star players (Rivals rankings). Over half. I would like to know what percentage of college football scholarship players are 4/5 star players. I would guess about 5%?
To play Devil's advocate to sd, most of the star rankings are based on measurables, which is what the NFL typically drafts on. So, it's no surprise that the correlation is high.
If a kid is freakishly big, freakishly fast, and freakishly strong, that probably won't change much after 3-5 years of college S&C.
There are only 250-300 kids in that 4/5 star range, and yes, it does make a difference if you can hoard a whole slew of them (i.e. Alabama), but for everyone outside of 10-15 schools, you need to find different ways to win, and a ton of colleges do.
So, the bottom line is that there are a lot of ways to win in college football. Hoarding 4/5 star talent is one, but it's not the only way.
-
I also love mocking the outlier argument. Constantly bringing up Jordy Nelson v. some 5 star that didn't pan out. Oh yeah? Out of 95% of all college football scholarship players you were able to locate a couple that worked out? Congrats dipshit.
-
We should just make it our new philosophy to hoard 4/5 star talent. That will make it ultimately easier on the coaches, plus it would be fun to watch our oline and dline get drafted in the first round every year.
-
I'd be fuckin' ecstatic if a class average is above 3.0 stars.
-
I'd be fuckin' ecstatic if a class average is above 3.0 stars.
yes, that would be huge for us
-
DID MARCUS WATTS HAVE STARS?!
Nope. No hips either
-
I also love mocking the outlier argument. Constantly bringing up Jordy Nelson v. some 5 star that didn't pan out. Oh yeah? Out of 95% of all college football scholarship players you were able to locate a couple that worked out? Congrats dipshit.
The real outlier is the Kansas State football program under LHC Bill Snyder, imo. It seems like you see a whole lot more low-ranked studs here than you typically find elsewhere.
-
sd this is a fantastic point and great stat. i completely agree with you... stars matter. plenty of outliers, just like everything in life, but the guys who rate hs talent know what theyre doing for the most part.
-
I think the main things to consider here is:
1. Snyder does a fantastic job with DIRs, this cannot be argued
a) would like to see what he did with consistent classes full of higher ranked kids
2. Snyder won't be here forever, history shows he's one of the very few coaches out of hundreds and hundreds that can win at a very high level without recruiting obvious studs.
a) Someone will have to take over for Snyder and most likely won't be a wizard.
None of this is a revelation to anyone that isn't a tuck, but it's shocking how people just overlook this and say we're fine with tons of DIRs.
-
I don't think Snyder just takes pieces of crap and molds them into studs. I just think he's better at evaluating talent than the recruiting services and he uses that skill to somewhat offset his deficiencies in recruiting.
-
I think coaching 3*s and a bunch of DITR is way different than coaching a bunch of 4*s and 5*s. It'd be interesting to throw Snyder in as HC at Alabama and see how he did it.
-
I don't think Snyder just takes pieces of crap and molds them into studs. I just think he's better at evaluating talent than the recruiting services and he uses that skill to somewhat offset his deficiencies in recruiting.
Clearly. It's not like Jordy Nelson or Sproles were some unathletic pieces of crap, but at the same time, I don't think he could recruit his classes and give them to Coach X and Coach X would field a top level team in 4 years either.
-
The stars outlier argument is just like the NFL retards saying you should try for a qb in late rounds "because Tom Brady, that's why".
-
I'm just not sure, KITNfury. Ron Prince inherited a LHC Bill Snyder team and took them to a bowl game after Snyder failed to do that 2 years in a row, and I really don't think Bill could take over KU's team, which is made up of players similarly rated by recruiting services as K-State, and win more than 3-4 games. I just think Bill knows his limitations in convincing studs to come play for him over other coaches and instead focuses on kids that aren't heavily recruited, hoping he can locate some studs, and he usually does.
-
I think Bill is good at long term development in players. That said, his best attribute is being able to quickly understand other coaches plans and their teams weaknesses and quickly find ways to work around that or expose that plan's weakness with the tools he has on hand.
The latter has much more to do with Bill's success than his ability to develop nobody recruits into somebody recruits.
-
welp, sorry sd, this thread used to be good
-
welp, sorry sd, this thread used to be good
quite being an apologetic loser pussy
-
welp, sorry sd, this thread used to be good
quite being an apologetic loser pussy
Yeah, I mean no crap stars matter. Tell us something else that all of us already know.
-
I'm just not sure, KITNfury. Ron Prince inherited a LHC LHC Bill Snyder team and took them to a bowl game after Snyder failed to do that 2 years in a row, and I really don't think Bill could take over KU's team, which is made up of players similarly rated by recruiting services as K-State, and win more than 3-4 games. I just think Bill knows his limitations in convincing studs to come play for him over other coaches and instead focuses on kids that aren't heavily recruited, hoping he can locate some studs, and he usually does.
Bill recruits a lot of players that have chance to be really good. The star system does a bad job of making note of this. This is stupid because mostly every player comes to college football not college football ready. Look at K-state 2013 class it isn't rated very high but their are a lot of players in it that have a chance to be really good. A lot people think that K-state has one of the worse class in the 2013 Big 12 because of how the recruits are rated. But you should all know that this isn't true.
-
welp, sorry sd, this thread used to be good
quite being an apologetic loser pussy
Yeah, I mean no crap stars matter. Tell us something else that all of us already know.
ok, ill tell you something else everyone already knows...
look at the last like 15 posts about how there are outliers on star ratings and how snyder makes players better but probably wouldnt be super awesome at alabama. just look. :jerk:
-
welp, sorry sd, this thread used to be good
quite being an apologetic loser pussy
Yeah, I mean no crap stars matter. Tell us something else that all of us already know.
ok, ill tell you something else everyone already knows...
look at the last like 15 posts about how there are outliers on star ratings and how snyder makes players better but probably wouldnt be super awesome at alabama. just look. :jerk:
You know this board is a KSU board, right?
-
I think coaching 3*s and a bunch of DITR is way different than coaching a bunch of 4*s and 5*s. It'd be interesting to throw Snyder in as HC at Alabama and see how he did it.
I don't like using the term DITR. They found lightly recruited players to perform a specific thing they wanted them to do.
John Hubert was lightly recruited, but he runs hard, doesn't turn the ball over, is a good blocker, and he gets a good YPC because he's a grinder back that helps benefit our clock draining strategy. The coaches saw that, recruited him, and he's a three year starter.
Lucas was a 2-star kid out of Louisiana, but he was 6'8" with an excellent frame and tremendous lower body strength. With three years of college S&C, you can get a kid with the potential to be an all-conference tackle (which he was) and a relatively high draft pick (which he will be).
The NFL is going to draft the physical freaks because there's always a thought at the next level that the coaches at the previous level didn't coach them right and that "we can do better" and help them meet their potential.
And that's why, if I were a coach at KSU, my strategy would be to find burners that were a little too light (Thompson, Lockett) or large basketball players that could put on 50-60 pounds over the course of 3-4 years so they could be solid linemen after that (Lucas) or highly thought of players that get injured in HS and are considered damaged goods (Leverett). Also, hit the transfer market HARD.
-
I also love mocking the outlier argument. Constantly bringing up Jordy Nelson v. some 5 star that didn't pan out. Oh yeah? Out of 95% of all college football scholarship players you were able to locate a couple that worked out? Congrats dipshit.
This.
I agree SD, stars matter a lot.
-
i have no numbers to back it up, but i would guess a huge majority of the guys who leave college early are 4/5 stars.
-
I would like to know the % of 4/5 stars that ultimately get drafted and the % of 3/2/0 starts that ultimately get drafted.
-
I would like to know the % of 4/5 stars that ultimately get drafted and the % of 3/2/0 starts that ultimately get drafted.
I would probably be more interested in a breakdown of 4* players vs 5* players.
-
Imagine how awesome we'd be if we surrounded diamond in the rough 2 and 3 star types with elite 5 star athletes.
We'd probably look a lot like how we did this year and last year.
Yes, I'd clearly like to have more 4 and 5 star kids. But like has been said, stars are usually given out based on measurables. At the end of the day, I think the difference in production between a wideout who runs a 4.45 and one who runs a 4.6 is negligible, as long as its not a Chris Harper type vs a Tremaine Thompson type. We've seen in the past how we can be outmatched by far superior athletes (Oregon) but we've also seen how we can win against teams that are more talented, like Texas. They matter, but we can win without a roster like Alabama's.
:powerespect:
-
I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO
-
I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO
Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.
That is a big stat if you understand it.
-
I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO
Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.
That is a big stat if you understand it.
I think he's being sarcastic. At least I hope he is.
-
Here you go.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmit.zenfs.com%2F214%2F2011%2F04%2FRivals-Draft-Chart.jpg&hash=b24b697b14131e9834152cbdaac20dad5e89977e)
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/star-power-how-recruiting-rankings-hold-up-at-the-top-of-the-nfl-draft?urn=ncaaf,wp1103 (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/star-power-how-recruiting-rankings-hold-up-at-the-top-of-the-nfl-draft?urn=ncaaf,wp1103)
So if you live by the principle that you need pros to be an elite program, it would help to have 4/5 Stars but theirs is defiantly enough room for error to be build an elite team out of a couple of 4 Stars each year and less heralded players. Also considering class can be 25 players each their is a lot of wiggle room for misses.
-
I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO
Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.
That is a big stat if you understand it.
I understand it, I'm just not as impressed by the accuracy of the star system as others...
What was the # of 5*'s drafted yesterday? The difference between a 5 & a 4 is the largest difference between any ranking system...The difference betweena 4* & a 3* is meh IMO
-
so on average 60% of the first round is 4/5 stars
-
I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO
It really does show that talent evaluators are not doing as good of a job as they should be. Steve Dave's argument of comparing the percentage of 4* and 5* kids who get drafted to the percentage of everybody else is pretty flawed. Of course the percentage of those kids going in the draft is higher than that of the general population. These are the kids that the scouts determined are the best. The fact that the percentage is not higher is the bigger issue. There are a lot of misses, and that really just shouldn't happen at the rate that it does, other than special circimstances like injury.
-
I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO
Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.
That is a big stat if you understand it.
I also don't buy this 5% stat...the chart posted by Mixed-Nuts shows it at closer to 12% of all players, and that is for ALL RECRUITS...Not saying that taken independently having 53% of a group come from 12% is still impressive, but not jaw dropping.
I've seen too many recruits have their star status bumped up or down depending on where they sign to take the system too seriously.
-
I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO
Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.
That is a big stat if you understand it.
I also don't buy this 5% stat...the chart posted by Mixed-Nuts shows it at closer to 12% of all players, and that is for ALL RECRUITS...Not saying that taken independently having 53% of a group come from 12% is still impressive, but not jaw dropping.
I've seen too many recruits have their star status bumped up or down depending on where they sign to take the system too seriously.
his data shows it as 12.7% of all players rated by rivals as a 2-5 star. there are a ton of players who are not rated by rivals that play football. a lot on our team right now in fact. his data also shows the average being almost 60% of players drafted on average.
-
It will be interesting to see how stars shift in this year class compared to older class with the rivals nation wide mini camps.
Also Rivals considers Mississippi to have about 3 times the talent that Kansas has even though the are roughly the same size.
-
I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO
Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.
That is a big stat if you understand it.
I also don't buy this 5% stat...the chart posted by Mixed-Nuts shows it at closer to 12% of all players, and that is for ALL RECRUITS...Not saying that taken independently having 53% of a group come from 12% is still impressive, but not jaw dropping.
I've seen too many recruits have their star status bumped up or down depending on where they sign to take the system too seriously.
his data shows it as 12.7% of all players rated by rivals as a 2-5 star. there are a ton of players who are not rated by rivals that play football. a lot on our team right now in fact. his data also shows the average being almost 60% of players drafted on average.
Right, but them not rating about 25-35% of all incoming D1 Freshman is even more of a reason to not get too worked up about the * system IMO
-
I mean statistically if you are a 4 or 5 star player there is an excellent chance (relatively) you will be elite at football. on the other end, if you are a unranked through 3 star player there is a very slim chance that you will be elite at football. Ultimately that's what the rivals star system sets out to do and they do a damn good job of it. that's the only point I was making in this thread. Not that there aren't outliers. Not that programs CAN'T win without these players. Just that stars are a very good indicator of football ability and fans of teams that don't get these players look like dumbasses saying they don't matter.
-
I mean statistically if you are a 4 or 5 star player there is an excellent chance (relatively) you will be elite at football. on the other end, if you are a unranked through 3 star player there is a very slim chance that you will be elite at football. Ultimately that's what the rivals star system sets out to do and they (statistically) do a damn good job of it. that's the only point I was making in this thread. Not that there aren't outliers. Not that programs CAN'T win without these players. Just that stars are a very good indicator of football ability and fans of teams that don't get these players look like dumbasses saying they don't matter.
I'm not trying to argue that they are irrelevant, or that they don't matter, but until they stop manipulating their ratings when a kid they took the time to rate as a 3* then signs with Alabama is all of a sudden bumped up to 4*, or the player they evaluated at 4* that KSU signs gets bumped to a 3*, I'm not going to get twisted over it.
-
Imagine how awesome we'd be if we surrounded diamond in the rough 2 and 3 star types with elite 5 star athletes.
We'd probably look a lot like how we did this year and last year.
Yes, I'd clearly like to have more 4 and 5 star kids. But like has been said, stars are usually given out based on measurables. At the end of the day, I think the difference in production between a wideout who runs a 4.45 and one who runs a 4.6 is negligible, as long as its not a Chris Harper type vs a Tremaine Thompson type. We've seen in the past how we can be outmatched by far superior athletes (Oregon) but we've also seen how we can win against teams that are more talented, like Texas. They matter, but we can win without a roster like Alabama's.
:powerespect:
I know Snyder can win a lot of games without the "studs". And I'll take all the winning I can get. At the same time, it would be pretty neat for us to win a NC in football or basketball before I die, and I don't think that's gonna happen with a bunch of 2* players. And honestly, I don't think we'll ever win a football NC in my life, but I think if Snyder had always been surrounded by 4*, we may have already have the crystal football in our trophy case.
No way to know that, but you know, a boy can dream.
-
You'll never find Jordy Nelson looking at stars. NEVER!
-
And I would like a breakdown of the % of studs that get drafted versus the % of puds that get drafted. Stats daemons, ho!
-
And I would like a breakdown of the % of studs that get drafted versus the % of puds that get drafted. Stats daemons, ho!
I can tell you right now that 0% of the puds get drafted.
-
You'll never find Jordy Nelson looking at stars. NEVER!
Yes you will. Whether he is leaping into the Lambeau faithful or sitting outside with an ice cold tea at Nelsons landing our boy Jordy can appreciate the little things in life.
-
I mean statistically if you are a 4 or 5 star player there is an excellent chance (relatively) you will be elite at football. on the other end, if you are a unranked through 3 star player there is a very slim chance that you will be elite at football. Ultimately that's what the rivals star system sets out to do and they do a damn good job of it. that's the only point I was making in this thread. Not that there aren't outliers. Not that programs CAN'T win without these players. Just that stars are a very good indicator of football ability and fans of teams that don't get these players look like dumbasses saying they don't matter.
What is your definition of being "elite" at football?
-
Do stars matter? YES
Now the REAL question should be a follow up to the first: matter to whom?
That rule does not apply to LHC Bill Snyder. You can say what you want but the dude finds talent whether you or I believe it to be the case. Dude keeps winning and keeps putting all conference players on the field and in the draft. Does he have as much talent as one of these 4-star deluxe signing day programs? No. But you cannot convince me he isn't a little better on the veal for these DIRs then the next guy.
Stars do matter to K-State's program under Snyder...but only in a limited capacity.
glad we had this talk.
-
snyder's way of doing things has a lot to do with it. i don't think people realize how much more k-state practices than any other team, how much more they meet, how much more they are required to know. every d1 program is intense but it's a different level at k-state in terms of time and energy required to put in to it.
it turns what would normally be a pud medium into a well oiled (mostly) disciplined machine stud medium.
Randall Evans is a perfect example. i don't think he really had offers coming out of high school (i mean check out his profile... http://rivals.yahoo.com/kansasstate/football/recruiting/player-Randall-Evans-83971;_ylt=ApLnOCRXO57H1NuhGSp7BsjpsJB4 (http://rivals.yahoo.com/kansasstate/football/recruiting/player-Randall-Evans-83971;_ylt=ApLnOCRXO57H1NuhGSp7BsjpsJB4)" but he was a stud athlete. let's say he goes to a small d2 school somewhere. he would probably play right away, be pretty good for that level, but not really develop into anything spectacular. instead he comes to kstate, gets put into the "system," gets stronger, develops, learns, earns a scholly, learns some more, gets on the field his sophomore year, and i believe ready to break out in his junior year.
i will never say stars are meaningless, if a kid has 4 or 5 he is absolutely more likely to be a stud. but you can develop a great program with 2 stars if you do it the right way, it just takes more work.
*untucks shirt*
-
yeah, I agree. Again, I am in no way suggesting you can't win the way KState does or there aren't kids that overcome their ranking.
-
yeah, I agree. Again, I am in no way suggesting you can't win the way KState does or there aren't kids that overcome their ranking.
i know you're not. just had to get rid of my morning Snyder wood.
-
3 stars serve as a foundation but elite teams have elite players that are 4 and 5 star kids.
-
I think pan and sd are kind of talking past each other. There aren't "a ton" of ways to win in college football. There are relatively few ways if we are talking about talent acquisition and roster construction. I mean sure, systems and schemes are necessarily related to these issues when looking at the big pictures, but they cannot ever replace talent acquisition.
LHC Bill Snyder gets a ton of crap for not recruiting well. I think there are arguments to be made that he recruits better than people that simply look at rivals star ratings as the only measure. But that fact does not dismiss the value of a rivals ranking and the large data sets that consistently state that a high rivals ranking is strongly correlated with winning college football and strong NFL prospects. No one is saying that Bill should completely scrap his strategy, I think many would just like to mix in some better top-end and mid-level talent.
I think our coaching change will be even more difficult than at most schools, because of all the reasons you can easily think of, at least partly due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the usefulness of the rivals ranking system. If everyone becomes convinced that the LHC Bill Snyder model is not largely attributed to the man, the legend, and is easily replicable we are in for some serious pain. There is no "K-State way" there is a LHC Bill Snyder way and until there is some evidence that that is repeatable I'm convinced that we need to embrace a more mainstream vision of recruiting.
-
What emawblast described is getting as absolute much out of players as possible. The 4/5 stars come into play in this as their ceiling is usually higher than the 2/3 stars.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
I think things like getting lots of players with late birthdays is really interesting. it seems line we're good at finding two stars that should be high three our four stars, but not high three our four stars that should be five stars. It feels like a fear of competition on the recruiting trail.
-
There was an article about texas kIds topping out early because they are all held back. Espn i think.
-
Snyder could absolutely win big at Alabama or the likes. Would the starting rosters look different that if Saban, were there? Yes, absolutely. I think the percentage of the team that would "buy in" would be lessened. But those that did would be collectively better than the higher percentage of athletes that buy in at KSU.
My point being that stars absolutely matter. Would Snyder and/or KSU be able to keep a roster chalked full with them happy? No, but I'll take running off 50% of our 4/5 stars, provided we get a decent amount, and the rest of the team filled with players that Bill typically recruits now over a team full of the way we recruit now.
That said, all I care about is W's. I don't care who is coaching, who is playing, who is in the seats. DPs and W's are all I care about.
-
I think pan and sd are kind of talking past each other. There aren't "a ton" of ways to win in college football. There are relatively few ways if we are talking about talent acquisition and roster construction. I mean sure, systems and schemes are necessarily related to these issues when looking at the big pictures, but they cannot ever replace talent acquisition.
LHC Bill Snyder gets a ton of crap for not recruiting well. I think there are arguments to be made that he recruits better than people that simply look at rivals star ratings as the only measure. But that fact does not dismiss the value of a rivals ranking and the large data sets that consistently state that a high rivals ranking is strongly correlated with winning college football and strong NFL prospects. No one is saying that Bill should completely scrap his strategy, I think many would just like to mix in some better top-end and mid-level talent.
I think our coaching change will be even more difficult than at most schools, because of all the reasons you can easily think of, at least partly due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the usefulness of the rivals ranking system. If everyone becomes convinced that the LHC Bill Snyder model is not largely attributed to the man, the legend, and is easily replicable we are in for some serious pain. There is no "K-State way" there is a LHC Bill Snyder way and until there is some evidence that that is repeatable I'm convinced that we need to embrace a more mainstream vision of recruiting.
Unless Bill was spending what little free time he fits into his schedule teaching his 45 year old son how to mimic his strategy of success by gradually giving him more responsibilities every season ... ?
It might be :bill: 's greatest scheme.
-
I think pan and sd are kind of talking past each other. There aren't "a ton" of ways to win in college football. There are relatively few ways if we are talking about talent acquisition and roster construction. I mean sure, systems and schemes are necessarily related to these issues when looking at the big pictures, but they cannot ever replace talent acquisition.
LHC Bill Snyder gets a ton of crap for not recruiting well. I think there are arguments to be made that he recruits better than people that simply look at rivals star ratings as the only measure. But that fact does not dismiss the value of a rivals ranking and the large data sets that consistently state that a high rivals ranking is strongly correlated with winning college football and strong NFL prospects. No one is saying that Bill should completely scrap his strategy, I think many would just like to mix in some better top-end and mid-level talent.
I think our coaching change will be even more difficult than at most schools, because of all the reasons you can easily think of, at least partly due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the usefulness of the rivals ranking system. If everyone becomes convinced that the LHC Bill Snyder model is not largely attributed to the man, the legend, and is easily replicable we are in for some serious pain. There is no "K-State way" there is a LHC Bill Snyder way and until there is some evidence that that is repeatable I'm convinced that we need to embrace a more mainstream vision of recruiting.
Unless Bill was spending what little free time he fits into his schedule teaching his 45 year old son how to mimic his strategy of success by gradually giving him more responsibilities every season ... ?
It might be :bill: 's greatest scheme.
The talking point of rival fans will change from "KSU can't win without Bill" to "KSU can't win without a Snyder", Tate takes over once Sean becomes Old Balls and the circle stays unbroken
-
I think pan and sd are kind of talking past each other. There aren't "a ton" of ways to win in college football. There are relatively few ways if we are talking about talent acquisition and roster construction. I mean sure, systems and schemes are necessarily related to these issues when looking at the big pictures, but they cannot ever replace talent acquisition.
LHC Bill Snyder gets a ton of crap for not recruiting well. I think there are arguments to be made that he recruits better than people that simply look at rivals star ratings as the only measure. But that fact does not dismiss the value of a rivals ranking and the large data sets that consistently state that a high rivals ranking is strongly correlated with winning college football and strong NFL prospects. No one is saying that Bill should completely scrap his strategy, I think many would just like to mix in some better top-end and mid-level talent.
I think our coaching change will be even more difficult than at most schools, because of all the reasons you can easily think of, at least partly due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the usefulness of the rivals ranking system. If everyone becomes convinced that the LHC Bill Snyder model is not largely attributed to the man, the legend, and is easily replicable we are in for some serious pain. There is no "K-State way" there is a LHC Bill Snyder way and until there is some evidence that that is repeatable I'm convinced that we need to embrace a more mainstream vision of recruiting.
Unless Bill was spending what little free time he fits into his schedule teaching his 45 year old son how to mimic his strategy of success by gradually giving him more responsibilities every season ... ?
It might be :bill: 's greatest scheme.
The talking point of rival fans will change from "KSU can't win without Bill" to "KSU can't win without a Snyder", Tate takes over once Sean becomes Old Balls and the circle stays unbroken
If Sean ends up being an evil genius because Bill taught him everything, I could care less about that talking point. Ditto 20 years from now if Sean passes it on to Tate.
-
I think Snyder takes a completely different approach to recruiting. A huge part of recruiting is highlight tapes, and Snyder wants to see what these guys are doing when they aren't making plays.